Supreme Court Reviews Delhi Voter Re-enrolment
The court considers directions over the use of Form 6 for voters seeking restoration of names deleted during Delhi’s electoral-roll revision.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it was considering an order to address confusion over the use of Form 6 during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi. The court also advanced the hearing in the main case from October 30 to October 28.
The application before the court alleged that voters whose names had been deleted during the revision were being asked to submit Form 6 to have their names restored. Form 6 is generally used to apply for enrolment as a new voter.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the applicants, argued that Form 6 requires applicants to declare that they have never voted before. He told the bench that a false declaration could attract imprisonment and requested that the Election Commission allow affected voters to use Form 8, which is used for shifted voters, or introduce another appropriate form.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said it would take up the application along with the main petition on October 28. The applicants had sought an earlier hearing, pointing out that October 30 was the deadline for filing claims and objections under the Delhi SIR process.
The application was filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri as part of a pending challenge to the Delhi electoral-roll revision. Their main petition alleges that the Election Commission did not adequately disclose the names of voters issued notices or the specific reasons for those notices.
On September 22, the Supreme Court had observed that notices issued to voters considered doubtful appeared to have been sent mechanically. It had asked the Election Commission to consider whether additional filters were needed to improve the process.
The court’s consideration of the Form 6 issue comes amid wider scrutiny of the Delhi SIR process. The latest proceedings concern the appropriate procedure for people seeking restoration of deleted names; the court had not yet issued a final ruling on the application at the time of the report.