Delhi SIR : Plea In Supreme Court Challenges ECI Directive That Deleted Voters Must File Form 6 For Electoral Roll Registration

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's procedure in the Delhi Special Intensive Revision requiring voters, whose names have been deleted pursuant to the SIR exercise, to fill Form 6 to seek re-inclusion of their names on the voter list.

An interlocutory application has been filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in the pending petition, where they have challenged procedures regarding a logical discrepancy in the Delhi SIR. The petition has been filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi.

They have pointed out that Form 6 requires every applicant to affirm that they are “applying for inclusion in the Electoral Roll for the first time”.

It has stated that during the enumeration phase of the Special Intensive Revision(SIR) in Delhi, 47,56,722 electors (32.78% of the voters who existed prior to the start of SIR) were excluded from the Draft Electoral Roll under the category of ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate). For any person on the ASDD list, the only mechanism for filing a claim for having their name restored in the voter list is through Form 6.

The petitioners have pointed out that this creates a fundamental anomaly as all these people were previously enrolled on the voter list but are now required to submit Form 6 and make a declaration that they are seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, which is factually incorrect and wholly inapplicable to their circumstances.

"Requirement of Form 6 imposes an anomalous and legally inapplicable 'first-time' enrolment declaration upon previously enrolled electors."

Further, such persons would also become liable for facing punishment for giving a declaration under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

"That the aforesaid anomaly is of particular concern in view of Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“RPA, 1950”), which makes it an offence to make or publish any false statement or declaration in writing in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll, or the inclusion or exclusion of any entry therein, where the person making such statement or declaration knows it to be false or does not believe it to be true. An elector whose name was previously included in the electoral roll cannot, therefore, reasonably be required to make a declaration that he/she is seeking enrolment for the first time as a pre-condition to seeking restoration of his/her name."

The petition also points out that the additional Declaration Form required to be submitted along with Forms 6 and 8, which has been prescribed through the SIR guidelines, is without the force of law and should be struck down.

Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which have been framed under Section 28 of the RPA, 1950. Section 28(1) empowers the Central Government, after consultation with the Election Commission, to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette, while Section 28(3) requires such rules to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and permits Parliament to modify or annul the same. However, no such procedure was followed for this additional declaration form.

The additional Declaration Form, which was published in the SIR guidelines issued in June 2026, was subsequently modified for the SIR guidelines issued in October 2025 and the guidelines issued in May 2026 (which are applicable for Delhi).

The petition also points out that the subsequent clarification by the ECI that the additional Declaration Form will not be required during the non-SIR period creates a situation wherein different mechanisms exist for the same purpose, which is legally not tenable.

"The result is that an existing elector whose name was removed from the Electoral Roll and who now seeks to be restored to the Electoral Roll is subjected to conditions which do not correspond with his/her correct status as an elector, and subscribing to the conditions laid in the form attracts penal consequences."

Prayers sought 

• Respondents to provide an appropriate mechanism for restoration and inclusion of names of existing electors whose names have been omitted from the electoral rolls pursuant to SIR, without requiring such persons to declare that they are applying for inclusion for the first time;
• A direction that no previously enrolled elector shall be required to submit a declaration contained in Form 6 which is factually inapplicable to such elector, and that an appropriate form/declaration be prescribed for restoration/inclusion of previously enrolled electors;
• Declare that the additional Declaration Form prescribed as a mandatory accompaniment to Form 6 under the SIR instructions applicable to NCT of Delhi, insofar as it imposes substantive requirements beyond the statutory Form 6 without amendment of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 in accordance with Section 28 of the RPA, 1950, is without statutory authority and unenforceable;
• Direct the Respondents not to reject an otherwise maintainable claim for inclusion/restoration solely on the ground that the applicant has not furnished the aforesaid additional SIR Declaration Form; and
• Direct that the procedure for seeking inclusion of an eligible elector shall not impose materially different substantive declaration requirements during the SIR and non-SIR period, save where such differentiation is expressly authorised by law;