Use of Form 6 to re-enlist voters left out during SIR challenged in Supreme Court

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding a "fundamental anomaly" in requiring people whose names were deleted from electoral rolls during the special intensive revision (SIR) process to fill Form 6 if they want re-inclusion in the voters’ list. The form, the petition pointed out, requires every applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion in electoral rolls for the first time as it is primarily used for the registration of new voters.

During the enumeration phase of the SIR in Delhi, 47,56,722 electors (32.78% of the number of names in the voters’ list before the SIR) were excluded from the draft electoral roll under the ‘absent, shifted, dead or duplicate entry (ASDD)' category. For these electors, the only mechanism to have their name restored in the rolls is through Form 6.

The petition says this creates a fundamental anomaly, as all these people were previously enrolled but are now required to submit Form 6 and make a declaration that they are seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, which is factually incorrect and wholly inapplicable to their circumstances.

Further, such persons also become liable to face a fine or even imprisonment for giving a false declaration under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950.

It also points out that an additional declaration that maps a voter's links with the previous SIR rolls, and which is required to be submitted along with the form, is without the force of law and should be struck down. Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which have been framed under Section 28 of the RPA, 1950.

While Section 28(1) empowers the Central government, after consultation with the Election Commission of India (ECI), to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette, Section 28(3) requires such rules to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and permits Parliament to modify or annul the same.

However, no such procedure was followed for this additional declaration. The additional declaration, which was published in the SIR guidelines issued in June 2026, was subsequently modified in the SIR guidelines issued in October 2025 and the guidelines issued in May 2026 (which are applicable for Delhi), the petition said.

It also points out that the subsequent clarification by the ECI that the additional declaration would not be required when the SIR is not underway creates a situation wherein different mechanisms exist for the same purpose, which it argues is legally not tenable.

The IA petition was filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, who also have another petition challenging the procedures regarding logical discrepancies in the Delhi SIR, pending before the court.