New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to ask voters excluded from Delhi’s draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to submit Form 6, meant for new voter registration, despite their names appearing on the 2026 electoral rolls.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, asked the poll panel to find a simpler way to help eligible voters restore their names without forcing previously registered electors to apply as first-time voters.

The court expressed concern that existing voters could face unnecessary procedural hurdles because they failed to submit enumeration forms during the revision exercise. It urged the ECI to address what it described as a structural incongruity in the process and consider extending the deadline for filing claims and objections.

The hearing was held on petitions filed by activists Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri challenging aspects of Delhi’s SIR exercise.

47.56 Lakh Names Excluded from Draft Electoral Roll

Delhi had approximately 1.45 crore registered electors when the SIR exercise began. According to figures presented during the proceedings, 97,53,577 electors submitted their enumeration forms by the August 17 deadline, while forms from 47,56,722 voters were not received.

The draft electoral roll published on August 31 excluded approximately 47.56 lakh electors who had not returned their enumeration forms. These voters were categorised under the groups of absent, shifted, deceased or duplicate electors.

The petitioners argued that a substantial number of affected people might not have received their forms or could have been temporarily away from their registered addresses for employment or other reasons.

They contended that the absence of an enumeration form should not automatically force a previously registered voter to undergo fresh registration without an appropriate opportunity to explain the circumstances.

Why Form 6 Became a Point of Contention

The dispute centres on the distinction between first-time registration and the restoration of names belonging to existing voters.

Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll as a new elector, while Form 8 provides a mechanism for changing residence and correcting or updating electoral details.

The petitioners argued that voters whose names appeared on the 2026 electoral rolls should not be compelled to submit Form 6 merely because they failed to complete the SIR enumeration process.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the logic of asking a previously registered voter to make a declaration that could conflict with their earlier electoral registration. He suggested that the ECI could instead allow such electors to submit their pending enumeration forms or use Form 8 where applicable.

The Bench emphasised that the prescribed electoral forms could not simply be altered at the Commission’s discretion. However, the ECI could consider an appropriate supplementary declaration explaining why an elector had been unable to respond to the enumeration exercise.

Supreme Court Urges ECI to Reach Out to Voters

The Bench suggested that the Election Commission should not place the entire responsibility on affected voters to discover their exclusion and approach the authorities on their own.

Chief Justice Surya Kant asked why the Commission could not make direct efforts to contact electors whose names had been left out, particularly those who might have been temporarily away from Delhi or had moved to another address.

The court also suggested publishing a list of affected voters and informing them how to approach their nearest Booth Level Officer (BLO).

The possible corrective measures discussed during the hearing included:

• Giving previously registered electors another opportunity to submit their enumeration forms.
• Allowing voters who have shifted residence to use Form 8 wherever applicable.
• Publishing clear information about excluded voters and the procedure for seeking inclusion.
• Issuing public notices explaining the steps required to restore names.
• Considering an extension of the deadline for filing claims and objections.

The Bench stressed that the procedure should distinguish between people seeking registration for the first time and eligible citizens whose names had been omitted during the revision exercise.

ECI Agrees to Examine Remedial Measures

The Election Commission, represented by senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, told the court that it would examine the suggestions and consider appropriate remedial steps, including extending the October 30 deadline for filing claims and objections.

The Commission maintained that Form 6 was being used because the affected electors’ names did not appear on the draft roll. The Bench, however, questioned whether that approach adequately addressed the circumstances of people who were already registered voters.

The court did not issue a final ruling on the legality of the Form 6 requirement during the hearing. Instead, it asked the Commission to consider a practical solution and report back.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up again after two weeks.

‘Logical Discrepancy’ Issue Remains Undecided

The hearing also addressed concerns about the Election Commission’s use of the “logical discrepancy” category during electoral roll revision.

The petitioners questioned the criteria used to identify such discrepancies and raised concerns about the transparency of the process. They sought greater clarity on the parameters and procedures used to flag voters for further scrutiny.

The Bench clarified that the Supreme Court had not finally adjudicated the constitutionality of the logical discrepancy criterion. It also noted that the issue had not been decided in its earlier proceedings concerning Bihar’s SIR exercise, while its continuation in West Bengal had been permitted as an interim arrangement.

The legality of the criterion therefore remains an open question, separate from the immediate dispute over the procedure for restoring the names of previously registered voters.

Why the Case Matters

The case raises important questions about how electoral roll revisions can balance the removal of ineligible entries with the protection of eligible citizens’ voting rights.

While the SIR exercise aims to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court’s observations underline the need for accessible procedures for people whose names are omitted because they could not complete the required formalities.

The proceedings do not automatically restore the deleted names or amount to a final finding that the entire SIR process is unlawful. They put the focus on whether the Election Commission should provide a more suitable route for existing voters to establish their eligibility and seek inclusion.

The ECI’s proposed corrective measures and the Supreme Court’s next hearing will be crucial in determining how affected Delhi voters can pursue their claims and whether additional time will be provided to complete the process.