The Delhi High Court has allowed voters whose names were removed from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to apply for inclusion through Form 6, while clarifying that submitting the form does not by itself amount to making a false declaration.
A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Chaudhary was hearing a petition filed by two voters whose names were deleted after they could not complete the enumeration process during the SIR in Delhi. The petitioners had challenged the procedure prescribed for existing voters who were unable to participate in the enumeration exercise.
The petitioners had sought restoration of their entries in the electoral roll. They also wanted permission to use Form 8 for correcting their names or shifting their registration from one address to another. According to the report, they said they had moved from their old address and therefore could not submit the enumeration form. Their names were subsequently removed from the voter list.
The petitioners objected to being required to submit Form 6, which is used to apply for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. They argued that filing the form could expose them to allegations of making a false declaration, because they were already registered voters whose names had been removed during the revision process.
Appearing for the Election Commission of India, standing counsel Sanjay Vashisht told the bench that the petitioners could resolve their grievance by submitting Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He also informed the court that the Electoral Registration Officer had offered to assist one of the petitioners with the process.
One of the petitioners, who appeared in person, opposed the suggestion. The court, however, rejected the concern that submitting Form 6 would automatically constitute a false declaration. The bench noted that the suggestion had been made by the Election Commission’s standing counsel on the basis of instructions from the Electoral Registration Officer.
The court clarified that the petitioners could submit Form 6 if they wished and that their applications would be considered in accordance with law. It described the apprehension that the first petitioner would face an allegation of false declaration as being based on a misunderstanding.
The order does not direct an automatic restoration of the deleted entries. Instead, it leaves the affected voters with the Form 6 route identified by the Election Commission, subject to consideration of their applications under the applicable legal process. With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.
