A significant legal challenge has been initiated in the regarding the procedures adopted by the () during the Delhi Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri have filed an within a , seeking to overturn an that mandates voters—whose names were deleted during the revision exercise—to file Form 6 to secure their re-inclusion in the . The petition, moved through advocates and , argues that this requirement forces previously registered citizens into a contradictory and potentially criminalizing administrative trap.
The urgency of the petition stems from the sheer scale of the deletions recorded during the recent enumeration phase. Official data indicates that 47,56,722 electors—comprising 32.78% of the total voters existing prior to the SIR—were excluded from the . These voters were categorized under the label of ASDD, which stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead, or Duplicate. Of this substantial group, over 31.59 lakh voters were specifically flagged as "permanently shifted." For these individuals, the current guidelines dictate that the only available mechanism for having their names restored is the submission of Form 6.
The Paradox of "First-Time" Declarations
The core of the legal contention lies in the fundamental incompatibility between the applicant’s actual status and the declaration required by the state’s current administrative forms. Form 6, as prescribed under the , includes a mandatory affirmation where the applicant must declare that they are “applying for inclusion in the for the first time.” The petitioners assert that requiring citizens who were already part of the electorate to submit this specific form is logically and factually untenable.
By compelling voters to attest that they have never before been enrolled, the
is, according to the plea, forcing them to sign an inherently false statement. This procedural hurdle not only complicates the path to re-enfranchisement but also imposes a burden on existing voters that ignores their documented history within the electoral system. As noted in the petition,
"Requirement of Form 6 imposes an anomalous and legally inapplicable 'first-time' enrolment declaration upon previously enrolled electors."
This creates a scenario where the
for removal is conditioned upon the submission of a document that is fundamentally ill-suited for the target population.
Conflict with Penal Provisions
The legal implications of this requirement are compounded by the existence of . This statute establishes that providing a false statement or declaration in writing, knowing it to be untrue, in connection with the preparation or correction of an constitutes a punishable offense. The section stipulates that such actions can result in imprisonment for a term of up to one year, a fine, or both.
The petitioners have highlighted the precarious position this places the average voter in. They argue that an elector whose name was previously included in the rolls cannot be reasonably expected to verify they are seeking enrollment for the first time as a prerequisite for reinstatement. The potential for these citizens to face prosecution for or making false declarations under the , serves as a significant deterrent to the exercise of their democratic rights. The plea stresses that the current effectively forces voters into a "catch-22" where they must choose between being excluded from the or signing a statement that could trigger criminal proceedings.
Procedural Concerns and Administrative Discretion
Beyond the immediate confusion for voters, the application challenges the legitimacy of the additional "Declaration Form" introduced through the SIR guidelines. The petitioners contend that this form—which accompanies the submission of Forms 6 and 8—lacks the requisite force of law. According to the petition, the procedure for prescribing such rules is governed by , which mandates that rules framed under the Act must be consulted upon and laid before both Houses of Parliament to ensure democratic oversight and potential modification.
The challenge highlights that no such legislative scrutiny was applied to the additional Declaration Form introduced in the SIR guidelines, which were subsequently modified in and again in . This lack of parliamentary validation, the petitioners argue, renders the requirement legally shaky. Furthermore, the ’s attempt to clarify that the additional Declaration Form would not be mandatory during non-SIR periods has only added to the confusion. The petitioners point out that the existence of different procedural mechanisms for achieving the same objective depending on the calendar period of the 's revision cycles is legally untenable and creates .
"The result is that an existing elector whose name was removed from the
and who now seeks to be restored to the
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
,"
the petition argues. By maintaining these disparate standards, the
has, according to the applicants, created an environment where electoral participation is hindered by inconsistent and poorly framed administrative rules.
As the matter proceeds before the Supreme Court, the focus remains on the 's justification for maintaining a system that excludes a significant portion of Delhi’s electorate through an inefficient re-enrollment process. With millions of voters potentially affected, the outcome of this litigation will determine whether the will be compelled to revise its SIR guidelines to allow for a more streamlined, factually accurate restoration process that does not force citizens to risk legal penalties to regain their right to vote. The case is currently awaiting further directives from the bench, as parties prepare for oral arguments regarding the necessity of a simplified, legally sound remedy for those erroneously deleted from the rolls.
electoral roll integrity - voter list transparency - administrative directive - mandatory form declaration
