At least 4,263 objections seeking the deletion of names from Delhi’s electoral roll were not included in the mandatory public disclosures during the first 45 days of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), The Hindu has reported. The missing applications represent nearly a third of the 13,462 Form 7 applications recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer between August 31 and October 16.
Only 9,199 of the objections were disclosed in the Form 10 list published in the public domain, leaving a gap between the number of applications reported as received and the number made available for public scrutiny. Form 7 is used to seek the deletion of a name from an electoral roll.
The disclosure process is significant because objections cannot simply move from submission to action without being made public. According to the Election Commission of India’s Manual on Electoral Roll 2023, an objection submitted through Form 7 cannot be acted upon unless it has first been published in the public domain.
The manual further specifies that an Electoral Registration Officer can act on an objection only after it has been included in a Form 10 listing on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website for seven days. That period is intended to provide a public window for scrutiny before action is taken on a proposed deletion.
The reported gap therefore concerns more than the availability of an online list. It affects the procedural chain through which a name may be removed from Delhi’s electoral roll. When an objection is not disclosed, voters and other affected parties may not have access to the information required to examine or respond to the proposed deletion within the prescribed process.
The figures relate to the first 45 days of the claims and objections phase of the SIR exercise in the national capital. During this period, the Chief Electoral Officer reported receiving 13,462 Form 7 applications. The Form 10 list available in the public domain contained 9,199 entries, according to the report, leaving 4,263 applications undisclosed.
The issue places the website maintained by the Chief Electoral Officer at the centre of the revision process. The site is not only a channel for publishing information after applications are filed; under the ECI manual’s procedure, publication is linked to the time period before an Electoral Registration Officer can take action.
The report did not establish from the available figures why the 4,263 applications had not appeared in the public Form 10 list. It also did not indicate in the supplied material whether the Chief Electoral Officer had issued a separate explanation for the difference between the applications received and the objections disclosed.
The immediate procedural question is whether the undisclosed applications can be acted upon before their publication and the completion of the required seven-day period. The ECI manual cited in the report sets out publication as a condition preceding action by an Electoral Registration Officer. Further details on the status of the missing applications and any response from the electoral authorities will determine how the discrepancy is addressed.
