A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine objections to the Election Commission of India’s November 3 clarification permitting previously registered voters to seek inclusion through Form 6, which requires a declaration associated with first-time enrolment.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, scheduled the matter for November 19 and permitted petitioners to file an application challenging the Commission’s position.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, submitted that the clarification failed to address fundamental difficulties identified by the court during an earlier hearing on October 28.
“How can they feel afraid like this when we are hearing the matter?” Chief Justice Kant asked, responding to concerns that deleted voters could face legal consequences for submitting declarations inconsistent with their previous registration.
The Chief Justice indicated that the court could consider asking the Commission to extend the deadline for claims and objections if additional time became necessary. However, the bench declined to issue immediate directions.
Bhushan argued that the Commission’s assurance against prosecution did not resolve the underlying contradiction of requiring people registered until May or June 2026 to apply as first-time voters merely because their names were omitted from the draft rolls.
The Commission had clarified on Tuesday that previously enrolled electors could submit Form 6 without facing proceedings under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, solely because they appeared on an earlier electoral roll.
The protection applies where applicants are not registered in another parliamentary or Assembly constituency and their declarations otherwise comply with statutory requirements.
Section 31 provides penalties for making false statements or declarations connected with electoral roll preparation, creating concerns among voters whose earlier registration could appear inconsistent with the prescribed Form 6 declaration.
Bhushan maintained that immunity from prosecution addressed only one aspect of the problem. The larger issue, he submitted, concerned the appropriate procedure for restoring voters whose names disappeared during the revision exercise.
During the October 28 proceedings, the Supreme Court questioned the Commission’s insistence on treating previously enrolled voters as fresh applicants. It raised concerns about the structural inconsistency between their established electoral status and the requirements imposed for restoration.
The court suggested that voters who had shifted residence should be permitted to use Form 8, ordinarily employed for changes or corrections to electoral particulars.
It also asked the Commission to consider accepting delayed enumeration forms from voters classified as absent or untraceable during the revision.
Bhushan contended that the November 3 communication effectively reiterated the requirement to submit Form 6 without adequately addressing those alternatives.
Delhi’s draft electoral roll, published on August 31, contained approximately 9.75 million electors, compared with about 14.5 million before the revision exercise began.
Nearly 4.76 million names were omitted under categories covering absent, shifted, deceased and duplicate electors. The scale of the exclusions prompted demands for accessible procedures allowing eligible voters to establish their status.
The Supreme Court had asked electoral authorities to contact affected electors, make relevant lists available locally and facilitate applications through booth-level officials.
Particular attention was directed towards approximately 3.16 million voters classified as shifted and another 1.17 million identified as absent or untraceable.
The Commission’s clarification cited an October 14 Delhi High Court order concerning objections to Form 6 declarations. The High Court had accepted the Commission’s position that previous enrolment alone would not expose an applicant to prosecution.
Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer reiterated on Wednesday that electors omitted from the draft roll could seek inclusion without prosecution merely because they had previously been registered.
The authorities extended the deadline for submitting claims and objections to November 25. The final electoral roll is scheduled for publication on December 22.
Applications can be submitted electronically through the Commission’s voter services portal and ECINET application, or physically through electoral registration officers, assistant electoral registration officers and booth-level officers.
The Commission has also instructed chief electoral officers across states and Union Territories to publicise its clarification, including through translations into local languages, so that affected electors understand the applicable procedures and conditions.
