The Supreme Court has pulled up the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its directive asking voters deleted during the Delhi Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to fill Form 6. Terming the move an "error" and a "structural incongruity," the apex court emphasized that the vital right to vote must not be forfeited due to procedural lapses.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Suryakant, Justice Bagchi, and Justice Mohana while hearing a petition and an interlocutory application (IA) concerning the Delhi SIR. The petition was filed by social activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, who were represented in court by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi.
Addressing the plight of approximately 47 lakh individuals enrolled as voters up to May 2026 but placed on the ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead, or Duplicate) list for failing to fill the enumeration form, the court directed the ECI to rectify the process. The bench clarified that Form 6 is strictly meant for first-time voters. Therefore, these 47 lakh individuals must be permitted to fill the Enumeration Form, or Form 8 in cases where they have shifted their residence.
The court further mandated that the details of the individuals on the ASDD list be made easily accessible. The ECI was directed to display this information in simple Hindi at the local booth or block level. Highlighting the demographic vulnerability of many affected individuals—such as labourers, hawkers, and daily wagers—the bench stressed that the ECI must proactively reach out to them and provide the necessary forms.
Noting that no elections are scheduled in Delhi, the court suggested extending the deadline for submitting the Enumeration Form or Form 8. The bench reiterated that a failure to submit these forms within the stipulated time should not result in the forfeiture of the right to vote, describing it as a "vital right."
The hearing also touched upon the legal validity of the "logical discrepancy" (LD) category used in the SIR. The court clarified that it has yet to adjudicate upon the LD issue, noting that it was merely allowed as an interim measure in the West Bengal SIR case and had not been adjudicated in the Bihar SIR case. The bench observed that the patterns created by the ECI and the application of mind in determining LD still require thorough examination.
The main petition seeks the disclosure of the definition, algorithmic parameters, and operational guidelines of the logical discrepancy category. The accompanying IA challenges the ECI's practice of forcing deleted voters to fill Form 6 and make false declarations as first-time voters, the legal validity of additional declarations, and the creation of differing enrollment procedures for SIR and non-SIR periods.
The matter is scheduled to be heard after two weeks.
Comments