NEW DELHI, Nov. 4 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would hear on November 19 concerns raised over the Election Commission's clarification allowing voters whose names were omitted from Delhi's draft electoral rolls to seek fresh enrolment through Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana assured petitioners that voters need not be apprehensive as the matter was already under judicial consideration. The court asked petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri to file an appropriate application bringing the Election Commission's November 3 clarification on record.
The issue was mentioned before the bench by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued that the poll body's latest communication contradicted the Supreme Court's observations on October 28 regarding the re-enrolment of voters whose names had appeared in the electoral rolls earlier this year.
Bhushan submitted that voters previously registered in Delhi should not be compelled to apply as first-time electors through Form 6, particularly when the prescribed declaration could expose them to allegations of furnishing false information.
Responding to the concerns, the Chief Justice said the matter was pending before the court and there was no reason for affected voters to be apprehensive. The bench indicated that the issue would be examined at the scheduled hearing on November 19.
The controversy arose after the Election Commission issued a clarification on Tuesday stating that voters whose names were missing from the draft electoral rolls could submit Form 6 for inclusion in the final rolls, regardless of whether they had been enrolled previously.
The Commission maintained that filing Form 6 in such circumstances would not automatically constitute a false declaration merely because the applicant had been registered as a voter earlier.
It further clarified that no action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, would be initiated against an elector solely because the person had previously appeared on an electoral roll and subsequently submitted Form 6 during or after the SIR exercise. The protection would apply provided the applicant was not already enrolled in another parliamentary or Assembly constituency and the declaration otherwise complied with the law.
The clarification followed concerns that previously enrolled voters could face prosecution because Form 6 requires applicants to declare that they are seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time.
During an earlier hearing on October 28, the Supreme Court had questioned the requirement that voters already registered in 2026 should submit fresh applications as new electors after their names were omitted from the draft rolls.
The bench had suggested that voters who had shifted residence should be permitted to use Form 8, which is prescribed for changes of address and corrections to electoral entries, while those unable to complete the enumeration process should be allowed to submit their enumeration forms.
The court had also asked the Election Commission to consider facilitating the restoration of eligible voters' names by publishing details of omitted electors and ensuring assistance through booth-level officers.
The issue assumes significance because approximately 47.56 lakh names were excluded from Delhi's draft electoral rolls published on August 31 following the revision exercise. The omissions included voters categorised as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate.
According to figures cited during the proceedings, around 31.59 lakh voters were classified as permanently shifted, while approximately 11.73 lakh were categorised as absent or untraceable.
The petitioners have argued that many eligible voters could face difficulties restoring their names if they are required to complete the process meant for first-time registration despite having been enrolled previously.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that its clarification addresses the possibility of prosecution and enables eligible voters to seek inclusion in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The poll body also referred to an October 14 Delhi High Court judgment concerning previously enrolled voters who feared legal consequences from submitting Form 6. The high court had observed that their apprehensions were misplaced and permitted their applications to be considered in accordance with law.
Meanwhile, the deadline for filing claims and objections in the Delhi electoral roll revision exercise has been extended to November 25. The Supreme Court indicated that it could consider further relief, including an extension of the deadline, if circumstances warranted.
The November 19 hearing is expected to examine the legal and procedural concerns surrounding the use of Form 6 by previously registered voters and the measures required to ensure that eligible electors are not excluded from the final electoral rolls.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.