The Supreme Court will hear on October 28 an application challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to enrol deleted voters during Delhi’s special intensive revision (SIR) as new voters. The court on Wednesday said that it intends to pass orders in the matter since the last date for Delhi voters to file claims and objections expires on October 30.
The application, filed by RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj, was mentioned by advocate Prashant Bhushan before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant for an urgent hearing. Bhushan said that Bhardwaj and social activist Amrita Johri filed a petition on September 16, challenging the deletion of over 4.7 million voters in the Delhi’s draft electoral roll published pursuant to SIR. However, the petition was listed for October 30, by which time the matter will be infructuous.
“We are thinking of passing an order that will take care of the situation,” the CJI responded, directing that all matters challenging the Delhi SIR be listed on October 28 along with the new application in question.
Bhardwaj's application questioned an ECI modification to Form 6, which requires voters to provide legacy details linked to the 2002 rolls. The plea states that this modification lacks statutory backing because it was introduced through an executive order, and not a statutory amendment.
In her plea, Bhardwaj also said a deleted voter should not be asked to apply as a new voter for re-inclusion, as it contradicts the declaration in Form 6, which requires every applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll "for the first time”. She said this amounts to a “false declaration” since these voters were on the rolls and voted in past elections. Such a statement, she stressed, could lead to penal consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950.
During the enumeration phase of SIR in Delhi, 4,756,722 electors (32.78% of the voters who existed prior to start of SIR) were excluded from the Draft Electoral Roll under the category of ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate or other categories). The process of receiving claims and objections is underway with the deadline of September 30 extended to October 30.
Also read | Form 6 row: How an ECI order reached Supreme Court | Timeline
To be sure, of the 9.7 million voters on the draft roll, 3.3 million were listed under logical discrepancies and unmapped. Of these, two million have been verified.
The application in the top court pointed to two anomalies. “Firstly, an existing elector is being required to use a statutory form designed for a first-time elector (Form 6) thereby knowingly being forced to subscribe to a false declaration.” Secondly, it added, “such elector is additionally subjected to an SIR-specific additional Declaration Form which is not contained in the statutory Form 6 and has not been brought into effect through the prescribed statutory process.”
As a result, Bhardwaj said, an existing elector whose name already existed in the roll is subjected to conditions that do not correspond with their correct status as an elector, and exposes them to penal consequences.
The application referred to a September 26 press note which made the position further “anomalous” by clarifying that during the non-SIR period, the additional Declaration Form is not required and only the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, shall be used.
Also read | ‘Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us’: Supreme Court seeks records from EC on voter form changes
“An executive direction or order, in the absence of statutory authority, cannot impose an additional substantive condition, such as the requirement of a Declaration Form, for invoking a statutory mechanism, particularly where such condition bears upon an elector’s ability to seek inclusion in the electoral roll,” the plea stated.
Form 6 requires an applicant to fill in their personal particulars including name, gender, date of birth, details of present ordinary residence, name of any relative (Father/ Mother/ Husband/ Wife/ Legal Guardian) and Aadhaar number along with a declaration. Point (iii) of the declaration specifically requires the applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time. Point (v) of the declaration states that the applicant is aware that giving a false declaration can attract penal consequences under Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950.
On Monday, the Supreme Court clarified that it had never adjudicated the validity of the ECI’s new Form 6, underlining that the modified version was not in existence when the court examined the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar earlier this year. The clarification assumes significance amid a dispute over the poll body’s claim that the Supreme Court upheld a declaration appended to Form 6 for the SIR exercise. The court said its earlier observations could not be construed as a judicial endorsement or rejection of any modified form and agreed to examine the issue after it was brought to its notice.
Also read | Absence from draft voter roll doesn’t mean name deleted: Election Commission tells Bombay High Court
Bhardwaj’s plea also raised concerns over Form 7 applications (applications objecting to the inclusion of voters). It cited news reports to suggest that during the claims and objections phase, between August 31 and October 4, over 3,200 Form 7 applications were disposed of as against only 569 Form 6 applications.
According to the Chief Electoral Officer’s bulletin on Tuesday, Delhi received 2,20,645 Form-6 applications for inclusion in electoral rolls and 83,004 Form-8 applications for updating addresses or corrections between August 31 and October 12. During the same period, 9,243 Form-7 applications seeking deletion of names and 393 Form-6A applications were received.