‘EC cannot alter Forms 6, 7 and 8’:SC questions why Form 6 is needed to restore names during Delhi SIR

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission on Wednesday over the Special Intensive Revision of the voter list in Delhi. The court asked why around 43 lakh voters excluded from the draft voter list, whose names were listed under the ‘shifted or absent’ category, were being asked to fill out Form 6 to have their names added again. Form 6 is meant for registering new voters, whereas these people were already included in the voter list. The Supreme Court told the Election Commission that Forms 6, 7 and 8 could not be changed. Before the SIR in Delhi, there were around 1.45 crore voters. Around 97.53 lakh names were included in the draft voter list released on 31 August. Thus, approximately 47.57 lakh names were left out of the draft list. What are Forms 6, 7 and 8 used for? What is the controversy over Form 6? The controversy over Form 6 began last month after The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes made to the form used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. A petition was subsequently filed in the Supreme Court on this basis. The Opposition’s main allegation is that the Election Commission violated the rules by adding an additional SIR-related declaration to Form 6 for new voters, creating an unnecessary hurdle for first-time voters. Key observations by Supreme Court: ‘There is no election in Delhi, so why the rush?’ The hearing was held by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Election Commission of India (ECI). Other key lawyers included senior advocate Maninder Singh and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. – Find a solution for voters who missed enumeration: The bench said people who could not submit their enumeration forms for any reason, as well as those whose names were on the electoral roll earlier but have now been removed, should be dealt with according to their circumstances rather than treated as ‘new voters’. – ECI cannot change Forms 6, 7 and 8: The bench said these forms have prescribed formats and the Election Commission cannot alter them. – Why the 30 October deadline? The bench questioned the urgency of setting a 30 October deadline when no election is scheduled in the national capital in the near future. – Do not set a cut-off date for restoring names: The court said there should be no cut-off date for restoring names to the electoral roll. The Chief Justice said the Election Commission should not simply wait for voters to submit applications but should also make efforts to reach out to them. – ECI indicates willingness to extend the deadline: Following the court’s observations, the Election Commission expressed its willingness to extend the deadline for submitting applications. ​