Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Allows Use of Form 6 for Voters Deleted in Special Intensive Revision, Leaving Procedural Questions Unresolved
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Court Ruling on Form 6 for Deleted Voters
On October 18 2026, a Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary held that the petitioners’ fear of prosecution for a “false declaration” if they filed Form 6 was “misplaced.” The court ordered that the two voters whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) may submit Form 6, and that the applications will be processed “in accordance with law.” The bench did not rule on the broader legality of requiring existing electors to use Form 6 rather than Form 8.
Background & Context
The SIR is a nationwide clean-up of electoral rolls. In Delhi, the draft roll published on August 31 excluded 47.56 lakh electors—about 32.78 % of the capital’s electorate. Most were classified as “permanently shifted,” with a smaller number listed as duplicate or deceased. Voters who moved before the enumeration period could not complete the required forms, leading to their deletion.
Two statutory forms govern voter registration:
- Form 6 – “Application Form for New Voters.” Intended for first-time voters; a false declaration is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act 1950.
- Form 8 – Used by existing voters to update address or correct details without starting a new registration.
The petitioners argued that, as previously enrolled voters, they should be able to restore their entries through Form 8 rather than be forced to make a fresh claim on Form 6.
Official Statements & Responses
- The bench noted that the suggestion to file Form 6 came from Election Commission standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha, acting on instructions from the local Electoral Registration Officer.
- Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi (note dated May 16) said any amendment to Form 6 requires changes to the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, a central-government function.
- Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu (statement on August 13) called the addition of an online question to Form 6 “unauthorised/illegal.”
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (oral remark on October 5) said the Supreme Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6 and would examine the Commission’s records.
Criticism & Opposition
- The Bombay High Court in Goa, hearing a petition by a family of five, questioned why the Election Commission required Form 6 when Form 8 is designed for address changes, urging the Commission to keep Form 8 “in abeyance.”
- Petitions before the Supreme Court have raised concerns that Form 6’s mandatory “first-time voter” declaration conflicts with Section 31 for voters who were previously enrolled.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The Delhi High Court resolved the immediate grievance by allowing Form 6 filings but did not decide whether the Election Commission can lawfully require existing voters to use Form 6. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the legality of the modified online Form 6, and any statutory change would need a central-government amendment. Consequently, the procedural pathway for voters deleted during SIR remains unsettled.
What’s Next
- The Supreme Court hearing on the Delhi SIR matter was advanced from October 30 to October 28.
- Maharashtra’s claims-and-objections window closes on October 26, with the state’s final roll due on November 16.
- The Commission’s “special drive” ordered on September 29 to enroll voters left out of the rolls continues across 20 states and union territories, using Form 6 pending any amendment.