The Battle Over Delhi’s Electoral Rolls
Imagine finding out your name has vanished from the voter list despite having voted for years. Worse, you are told that to get your name back, you must sign a form declaring it is your very first time applying. This is the exact legal dilemma facing millions of voters in the national capital following a massive revision exercise.
Transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri have filed an application in the Supreme Court. They are challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) procedure under the Delhi Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The plea, filed through advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, highlights a major legal and logical flaw in how voters are forced to seek re-inclusion.
The Numbers And The Form 6 Anomaly
During the enumeration phase of the Delhi SIR, nearly 47.5 lakh electors—amounting to roughly 32.78 percent of voters registered before the process began—were excluded. They were categorized under ASDD, which stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead, or Duplicate. For anyone on this list, the only way to restore their name is by submitting Form 6.
However, Form 6 comes with a catch. Every applicant must formally affirm that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time. Legal experts point out that this creates an obvious factual anomaly. These citizens were already registered voters, making the first-time declaration entirely untrue for them.
What The Law Says
Forcing previously registered voters to sign a false declaration opens them up to serious legal risks. Under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA, 1950), making a false statement or declaration in connection with the preparation or revision of an electoral roll is a punishable offense. It can lead to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The petition also challenges an additional Declaration Form introduced through the SIR guidelines. Form 6 and its rules are strictly governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under Section 28 of the RPA, 1950. Section 28 requires rules to be made by the Central Government via official notification and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The petitioners argue that the extra declaration form lacks this statutory backing, making it legally unenforceable.
What The Petitioners Are Demanding
The Supreme Court application asks for specific reliefs to protect citizens from unfair administrative burdens:
- A proper mechanism to restore existing electors without forcing them to falsely claim they are enrolling for the first time.
- Protection for previously enrolled voters from having to submit legally inapplicable declarations.
- A declaration that the additional SIR Declaration Form is invalid because it bypasses Section 28 of the RPA, 1950.
- Orders preventing election authorities from rejecting valid restoration claims simply due to the missing extra declaration.
- Consistency in rules so that citizens do not face vastly different standards during SIR and non-SIR periods.
Why This Matters For You
Electoral rolls form the backbone of Indian democracy. When administrative errors or rigid bureaucratic forms force citizens into making false declarations under the threat of criminal prosecution, it threatens the fundamental right to vote. This Supreme Court battle will decide whether administrative shortcuts can override statutory protections for everyday voters.
As the apex court reviews the plea, everyday citizens and election watchers will be keeping a close eye on how administrative accountability is balanced against electoral integrity in India.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
