The Supreme Court of India has sharply questioned the Election Commission of India regarding its requirement that voters who were already on the 2026 electoral rolls but missed the enumeration process during the Special Intensive Revision must now file Form 6. This form, typically reserved for first-time applicants, requires an elector to declare that they have never been registered as a voter before—a stipulation that the Court noted could potentially force long-term residents into making false declarations. During the hearing, the bench expressed significant concern that existing voters, particularly those who may have temporarily shifted due to work or residential changes, are being treated as new entrants rather than being permitted to use simpler, more appropriate mechanisms such as Form 8 for updating their addresses.

The proceedings took place before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. The Court, in an effort to protect the rights of Delhi’s substantial floating population, suggested that the Election Commission should avoid enforcing strict cut-off dates for submissions while the revision process remains ongoing. The bench highlighted the practical realities of a cosmopolitan city like Delhi, where laborers, daily wagers, and hawkers frequently move between areas for employment, and emphasized that the burden of correcting these gaps should not fall entirely on the electors.

Navigating the Hurdles for Floating Populations

Central to the dispute are the nearly 47 lakh voters who were excluded from the draft rolls published on August 31. Out of this total, the election authorities identified approximately 43 lakh individuals as having either permanently shifted or being absent from their registered addresses. The Court remarked that being away from one’s residence for a brief period for employment does not equate to a permanent move, and that characterizing such individuals as having "shifted" without further verification is a structural incongruity. Justice Bagchi underscored this point, observing, “a structural incongruity which needs to be addressed,” while suggesting that the Election Commission establish a residual category for voters who could not be served the enumeration forms but remained residents of the city.

The judicial intervention comes as the Commission faces scrutiny over its internal procedures and the management of its databases. During the session, the Court urged the Commission to adopt a more proactive approach in reaching out to these 43 lakh excluded individuals. Rather than waiting for potential voters to independently discover their names are missing and navigate complex filing requirements, the bench recommended that the commission publish lists of these electors at local booths. This, the judges noted, would allow citizens to easily contact their nearest Booth Level Officer to rectify their status, rather than forcing them to go through the potentially intimidating process of a fresh registration.

Scrutinizing the Legality of Categorization

A significant portion of the debate focused on the "logical discrepancy" category used by the election authorities to manage roll exclusions. The bench clarified that it had not yet finally adjudicated on the legality of this category and noted that previous judicial permissions granted in other states—such as the interim measures in West Bengal—did not constitute a binding precedent for the mass application of these criteria in Delhi. The judges expressed apprehension regarding whether the use of such system-generated categories amounted to a genuine application of mind by human agencies, warning that the Commission must ensure its data processing does not unfairly disenfranchise eligible citizens.

Justice Bagchi further remarked that the right to vote is a vital constitutional interest that cannot be forfeited simply due to an elector's failure to respond to an enumeration form, especially when that form may never have reached the intended recipient. The Court emphasized that the Commission’s work must be conducted with due diligence and that the statutory forms provided by the election laws cannot be circumvented or altered to suit internal administrative shortcuts. In response to these concerns, the Commission’s representatives indicated that the authorities would examine the Court’s suggestions, including the possibility of extending the current deadlines for submitting voter information.

Commission Defenses and Internal Process Integrity

Alongside the primary dispute over voter registration, the Commission also filed a counter-affidavit addressing wider allegations regarding its decision-making processes. Facing claims that the Chief Election Commissioner had acted unilaterally in implementing the revision process, the Commission maintained that all three Special Intensive Revision orders—issued between June 2025 and May 2026—were the result of unanimous decisions by the full Commission. The affidavit clarified that internal notes, queries, or differing views recorded while a file is under consideration do not constitute the final decision of the Commission, which is typically taken through consensus or majority.

To address concerns regarding technological oversight, the Commission informed the Court that it has established a committee to audit the compliance and legal validity of its digital systems, which includes external experts from institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. The Commission also refuted claims that it had unilaterally modified Form 6, clarifying that the declaration document added during the revision process was designed to assist with verifying link entries from previous rolls, and that it has since taken steps to separate this declaration from the online form to prevent confusion among applicants.

As the matter stands, the Supreme Court has granted the Election Commission a two-week window to consult, refine its procedures, and report back on its progress. In the interim, the Commission has been directed to continue accepting both Form 6 and Form 8 filings without insisting on strict cut-off dates, ensuring that eligible voters retain their opportunity to participate in the democratic process while the broader questions of administrative fairness are resolved. The Court’s decision to keep the process open for the time being ensures that the ongoing electoral roll revision does not result in the permanent exclusion of thousands of citizens while the legal and technical safeguards remain under active judicial review.