Names Deleted During SIR: Why The Form 6 Route Is Under Scrutiny

Two voters whose names were deleted during Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) can apply for inclusion again through Form 6, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Delhi High Court. But the suggested remedy raised a question: how can previously registered voters declare that they are seeking enrolment for the first time?

The court closed their petition after describing the fear of being accused of making a false declaration as “misplaced”. It noted that the suggestion to submit Form 6 came from the ECI’s counsel on instructions from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

The dispute centres on the difference between applying for inclusion through Form 6 and updating an existing electoral entry through Form 8. Similar concerns have reached the Bombay High Court at Goa and the Supreme Court.

Why Did The Two Voters Approach The Delhi High Court?

The petitioners said they had moved from their previous addresses and could not complete the enumeration process during the SIR. Their names were subsequently deleted from the electoral rolls.

They challenged the procedure prescribed for existing electors who could not be enumerated. They sought restoration of their entries and permission to process their address changes through Form 8, rather than having to apply for fresh inclusion through Form 6.

The ECI’s counsel told the court that the petitioners could address their grievance by submitting Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The counsel also said the ERO would assist them, but they had chosen not to pursue that route.

One petitioner, however, expressed concern that submitting the form would require a declaration inconsistent with his previous registration.

What Is The Problem With Form 6?

Form 6 is the statutory application for inclusion in an electoral roll. Besides personal particulars, it requires applicants to declare that they are applying for inclusion for the first time.

For someone who was already registered but whose name was deleted during the SIR, that declaration is at the centre of the dispute. The petitioners’ objection concerns the requirement to describe a fresh application as their first enrolment.

Their concern also involves Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It provides for imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both for making a written statement or declaration that is false and that the person knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true.

The issue, therefore, is whether previously enrolled voters can be required to make the first-time declaration while seeking to have their names included again.

A related objection is that this process treats an existing elector as a fresh applicant rather than restoring the earlier entry.

What Did The Delhi High Court Say?

A bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary said the petitioner’s apprehension was misplaced because the ECI itself had suggested the route through its counsel, acting on the ERO’s instructions.

“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for the ECI, that too as per the instructions of the electoral registration officer, petitioner No.1's apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced,” the bench said.

It then closed the proceedings, leaving the petitioners free to apply.

“The petitioners, if so desire, may fill Form 6, which shall be processed in accordance with law,” the court said.

The direction allowed submission and processing of the applications; it did not itself restore the two names.

Why Are Petitioners Seeking To Use Form 8?

Form 8 is used for a change of residence or correction of an existing electoral entry. The Delhi petitioners argued that this was the appropriate route because they were already enrolled before moving.

A similar issue arose before the Bombay High Court in a petition by a family of five. Their names were omitted from the rolls despite applications through Form 8 after they moved within the same Santa Cruz constituency.

Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes orally questioned why the applications had to be rejected instead of being kept pending until the roll was completed.

“Why must you (EC) reject it? Why can’t you just keep it in abeyance? Finish your roll. Publish your roll. Then deal with all those Form 8s, because that is the best information for you to understand where people are shifting,” the bench said.

It observed that rejecting Form 8 would mean “the roll will not have that person’s name”.

What Is Before The Supreme Court?

An application challenging Delhi’s SIR has also raised the Form 6 declaration and its implications for previously registered voters.

According to the plea, around 47.56 lakh electors were excluded from the draft roll published on August 31, out of roughly 1.45 crore electors before the exercise. Of those excluded, 31.59 lakh were categorised as “permanently shifted”.

The application argues that these people were already enrolled and that the statutory framework ordinarily provides for Form 8 to record address changes or correct existing entries. Requiring Form 6 instead, it says, makes them give a declaration that does not match their circumstances.

It also raises concerns under Section 31 and challenges an additional SIR declaration asking whether applicants or their family members appeared in the previous SIR.

The plea seeks a direction preventing the ECI from rejecting applications solely because that additional declaration has been left unfilled. The Supreme Court is examining the challenge.