Signing you in

Listen 00:00 0.5x 0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x AI Narration This audio is AI generated.

When voters whose names were deleted from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process are asked to apply afresh for reinstatement, can they be required to declare that they are first-time voters?

The Delhi High Court last week considered this question in a petition by two voters, who raised Form 6 for new voters in relation to the SIR exercise. While the bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary said the concern was “misplaced”, voters elsewhere have also earlier petitioned over the query, including in the Supreme Court.

Issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI), Form 6 is an application for inclusion in the electoral rolls and is meant for people who have never voted before.

In the case of voters who shifted homes and therefore could not be enumerated at their old addresses, resulting in their names being dropped from the rolls during the SIR process, the ECI provided the recourse of using Form 6. The form carries a declaration that an applicant is seeking enrolment for the first time.

However, petitioners point out that Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act of 1950 penalises any person with imprisonment of one year or a fine, or both, who makes “a statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true.”

The other concern is that the process treats an existing elector as a new one, as it does not restore the earlier enrolment.

The petitioners contended that they could not complete the enumeration process because they had moved houses, leading to the deletion of their names. They said their names should be restored and their change of address processed through Form 8 rather than making them apply afresh. Form 8 is used to declare a change of residence or correct an existing entry.

The ECI told the court they could get their names added by submitting Form 6 with the help of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), but one petitioner argued that doing so would mean making a false declaration.

The bench dismissed the case, noting that the suggestion to use Form 6 came from the ECI’s counsel on the instructions of the ERO. The ERO is authorised to prepare and revise electoral rolls and is a local authority or government official designated as such by the ECI, after consultation with the state government.

The Bombay High Court at Goa had also questioned why the ECI is asking voters to apply afresh through Form 6 when Form 8 allows them to update their addresses. The issue came up in a case filed by a family of five, whose names were left out of the electoral rolls despite applying through Form 8 after moving within the same Santa Cruz constituency.

The bench comprising Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes orally asked the EC why Form 8 cannot be kept in abeyance (or halted) instead. It said, “Why must you (EC) reject it? Why can’t you just keep it in abeyance? Finish your roll. Publish your roll. Then deal with all those Form 8s, because that is the best information for you to understand where people are shifting.” The bench pointed out that rejecting Form 8 would mean “the roll will not have that person’s name.”

One of the plea’s central arguments is the scale of voters deleted. Around 47.56 lakh electors were excluded from the draft roll published on August 31 (Delhi had around 1.45 crore electors before the SIR process began). Of these, 31.59 lakh were categorised as “permanently shifted.”

It states that “such persons were already enrolled as electors, and the statutory framework ordinarily contemplates the use of Form 8 for recording a change of residence or effecting a correction in an existing electoral entry.” The plea states that these voters must use Form 6, whose declarations do not reflect their circumstances.

The plea also raised concerns under Section 31 of the RPA of 1950. The application states that previously enrolled voters should not have to make a factually incorrect claim just to restore their names.

The plea also raises a question about the legality of the additional declaration that the EC requires applicants to submit during the SIR. The additional declaration states whether the applicant was included or had family members included in the previous SIR. The plea seeks to ask the court to declare the additional information as unenforceable and direct the ECI not to reject applications solely based on an unfilled additional declaration.