New Delhi [India], October 18 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has held that the apprehension of a petitioner, whose name was deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), that filing Form 6 to seek fresh inclusion could expose him to allegations of making a false declaration was misplaced, in view of the assurance given by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary closed the writ proceedings filed by Nilotpal Datta and another petitioner, who challenged the procedure requiring them to seek fresh inclusion in the electoral roll instead of restoration and shifting of their existing entries.
The court observed that the suggestion to submit Form 6 had come from the ECI’s standing counsel on the basis of instructions received from the Electoral Registration Officer. It permitted the petitioners to submit the form, if they so desired, with the application to be processed in accordance with law.
The order was passed on October 14.
The petitioners told the court that they could not fill in the enumeration forms during the SIR exercise because they had shifted from their earlier residential address. Consequently, their names were deleted from the electoral roll.
Challenging the procedure, they sought to quash a provision of the ECI’s order dated June 24, 2025, as made applicable to Delhi through a communication dated May 14, 2026. They contended that the procedure was contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
During the hearing, ECI standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha submitted that the petitioners could address their grievance by furnishing Form 6 under the relevant provisions of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
He further told the court that the same suggestion had been made at the previous hearing and that petitioner No. 1 had been assured that the Electoral Registration Officer would provide assistance in the process. However, the petitioners had not opted to submit the form.
Petitioner No. 1, appearing in person, opposed the suggestion, arguing that furnishing Form 6 would amount to making a false declaration.
The bench, after hearing the submissions, rejected the apprehension as misplaced in view of the assurance conveyed on behalf of the ECI.
Apart from challenging the procedure, the petitioners had sought directions for restoration of their electoral entries under Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, along with permission to seek correction and transposition of their entries through Form 8 to the electoral roll corresponding to their present place of ordinary residence.
They had also sought directions to ensure that the restored and transposed entries were reflected in the finally published electoral roll in accordance with Rule 22 of the rules.
The court, however, closed the proceedings without issuing the directions sought by the petitioners. It clarified that they could submit Form 6 if they wished, and that the application would be processed in accordance with law. The pending applications were also disposed of. (ANI)
Delhi HC says voter’s fear of false declaration over Form 6 is ‘Misplaced’, closes plea against deletion of names from electoral roll
