Delhi High Court upholds SIR procedure, directs voter to use Form 6 after address change
The petitioners had asked the High Court to direct the ECI to recast the procedure governing existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) existing procedure for voter registration, directing an elector whose name was deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to apply afresh using Form 6 rather than Form 8 to update his address.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary declined to entertain a plea by Nilotpal Datta and others seeking directions to the ECI to revise the procedure for existing voters who could not be enumerated during the SIR.
The petitioners argued that they could not submit their enumeration forms after moving from their previous addresses, resulting in their names being removed from the electoral roll.
They sought permission to transfer their existing electoral entries through Form 8 instead of being required to apply for fresh inclusion through Form 6. The court, however, did not accept their request.
ECI assures voter over Form 6 declaration
The court took on record the ECI’s assurance that Datta would not be accused of making a false declaration if he used Form 6 to have his name added to the electoral roll.
Form 6 is used to register as a new elector, while Form 8 allows existing voters to apply for a change of residence or correction of entries in the electoral roll.
Appearing for the ECI, standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha submitted that the petitioners could address their grievance by filling out Form 6, as prescribed under Rule 25(2), read with Rule 13(1)(a) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Vashishtha told the court that he had asked Datta to submit the form at the previous hearing and assured him that the Electoral Registration Officer would provide assistance. However, the petitioners had chosen not to proceed with the application, for reasons best known to them, he submitted.
Court rejects apprehension of false declaration
After hearing both sides, the bench said the petitioner’s concern about being accused of making a false declaration was misplaced, given the assurance provided by the ECI’s counsel on the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer.
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too as per the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, petitioner no.1’s apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced,” the court said.
The bench closed the writ proceedings with the observation that the petitioners could submit Form 6 if they wished to do so.
“With these observations, the writ proceedings are closed. Petitioners, if so desire, may fill Form 6, which shall be processed in accordance with law,” the court said in its decision delivered on October 14.
What did the petitioners seek?
The petitioners had asked the High Court to direct the ECI to recast the procedure governing existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR.
They argued that the procedure should conform to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, while preserving the statutory process for correcting and transferring existing electoral entries.
Their plea specifically sought to retain the option of using Form 8 to update existing voter records, rather than requiring those affected to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.
The court declined to issue the requested directions, leaving the ECI’s existing procedure in place. It also made clear that the petitioners could still apply using Form 6, with their applications to be processed in accordance with the law.