Supreme Court Intervenes in Delhi Voter Revision

NEW DELHI — In a significant legal development concerning electoral administration, the Supreme Court of India has asserted that the Election Commission lacks the authority to alter statutory Forms 6, 7, and 8. The observation came during an extensive hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the national capital.

A bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, expressed strong reservations regarding the administrative approach taken by the poll panel. The court specifically questioned the rationale behind compelling individuals already listed on existing electoral rolls to fill out Form 6—a document legally designated exclusively for the registration of new voters—to secure their re-enrolment.

Concerns Over Deadlines and Categorisation

Addressing the bench, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, highlighted that a substantial number of Delhi voters either failed to receive enumeration forms or could not submit them due to various logistical hurdles, including intra-city relocations.

Form 8 is conventionally mandated for address modifications, whereas Form 6 requires applicants to declare that they have not been previously included in any electoral roll. Legal counsel argued that forcing existing voters to submit Form 6 is inherently unreasonable and administratively flawed.

Furthermore, the apex court bench questioned the insistence on maintaining an October 30 deadline, pointing out that no state assembly or general elections are scheduled in Delhi in the immediate future.

"Do not set a cut-off date for the re-enrolment of names," the bench directed, urging the Commission to adopt a pragmatic and simplified mechanism for citizens whose enumeration forms remained unsubmitted.

A Call for Proactive Electoral Outreach

Emphasizing institutional responsibility, Chief Justice Kant remarked that the Election Commission should actively reach out to citizens rather than passively awaiting applications. The bench advised authorities to formulate tailored administrative solutions for individuals missing from updated rolls rather than casually categorising them as new applicants or permanently displaced.

During the proceedings, petitioners and transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri brought forward alarming statistics regarding the revision drive. Out of an initial voter base of approximately 1.45 crore, roughly 97 million forms were successfully collected, leaving nearly 47 million submissions unaccounted for.

Statistics presented to the court indicated that approximately 43 lakh voters were marked as 'permanently shifted' or 'absent,' with roughly 31.59 lakh classified under the former and 11 lakh categorized as untraceable, alongside two lakh deceased individuals. Petitioners argued that a vast majority within this demographic likely represent citizens who never received physical enumeration paperwork.

While the Election Commission has indicated flexibility regarding deadline extensions, the Supreme Court's intervention underscores the necessity of strict adherence to statutory formats and safeguarding voter enfranchisement rights.