SC asks EC to address concerns over Delhi SIR, devise ways to contact 47 lakh deleted voters

New Delhi : Observing that the right to vote is vital and it cannot be forfeited even if a voter is absent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission to devise a mechanism to reach out to 47 lakh of 1.45 crore Delhi voters whose names were struck out in the draft voter list during the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls.

The top court questioned the poll panel on the requirement for previously enrolled voters, whose names are omitted from the draft rolls, to file Form 6 meant for first-time enrolment to seek inclusion.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the poll panel why voters already on the 2026 roll must file Form 6.

It also advised the EC not to fix the deadline and accept enumeration forms from deleted voters instead of asking them to fill Form 6, 7 and 8.

"You see how to reduce this gap of 43 lakh. We will take up after two weeks.

"One suggestion, please publish the list telling that you are the 43 lakh persons who were earlier shown in so and so... that we have not been able to contact you, please see that you are able to contact us," the CJI orally observed, adding, "Ask them to contact nearest BLO and fill Form 8."

The Election Commission told the bench that it will consider accepting late enumeration forms and will extend the October 30 deadline if needed.

"The right to vote is a vital right. Your job is to act with due diligence. Let's say the voter was amiss... will that be ground to forfeit the right forever? A voter comes and says, please put in these papers. You say, put in Form 6. How does he file Form 6?

"This is structural incongruity... if he has not filled an enumeration form and draft roll having been published, he has not shifted... will you say the person forever loses the right to come in roll?" Justice Bagchi asked.

Taking note of the submissions of senior advocate D S Naidu appearing for the Election Commission, the CJI said that it will take up again after two weeks the plea filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri.

The plea sought a direction to the Election Commission to place in the public domain the list of electors who were issued notices during the SIR of electoral rolls in Delhi along with specific reasons for each notice.

The bench asked the poll panel to explore ways to facilitate the re-enrolment of voters who may have been marked as shifted or absent despite not having been contacted during the enumeration exercise.

The bench also suggested that the EC publish lists of voters it had been unable to contact, along with details of their previous polling locations, and publicise the process for restoring their names to the electoral rolls.

It asked the EC to continue accepting Forms 6 and 8, issue public notices clarifying that there was no cutoff date for approaching the authorities at this stage and persuade affected voters to come forward.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners, said approximately 47 lakh voters had been omitted from Delhi's draft electoral rolls, which had covered around 1.45 crore electors before the SIR.

Questioning the approach adopted by the poll panel, the CJI said that migration was common in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, where people frequently moved between localities in search of employment and other opportunities.

"Instead of burdening them that they will approach, why don't you reach out to them?" the CJI asked.

Naidu said the omission of names at the draft-roll stage should not be understood as a final deletion and said the process remained open for eligible persons to seek inclusion.

The CJI, however, pointed out that the EC's approach appeared to presume that electors continued to reside at their earlier addresses.

If they had moved and the enumeration form had not reached them, they might not have had an opportunity to participate in the exercise.

Justice Bagchi distinguished this situation from an exercise in which the EC was verifying entries against the 2003 electoral roll.

The bench also asked how the poll panel had served enumeration forms on electors and what would happen to those who were temporarily away from Delhi or could not respond within the prescribed period.

The bench also referred to Rule 13 of the relevant rules and questioned whether the EC had adequately considered the reasons why some electors could not respond to enumeration forms.

The poll panel said it conducted awareness camps and deployed thousands of booth level officers (BLOs), with booth level agents (BLAs) of political parties also assisting in the exercise.

The CJI asked the poll panel not to be constrained by the existing timetable while addressing the issue and said the commission should develop a mechanism to determine whether the affected electors had shifted permanently, were temporarily away or continued to reside in Delhi.

The bench suggested the EC publish a list identifying the approximately 43 lakh electors it had been unable to contact, including the polling locations at which their names had previously appeared.

The information should be made easily accessible so that affected persons could establish their status and approach the nearest BLO.

The CJI also said the EC could verify information submitted through Form 8 and seek supporting documents wherever necessary if doubts arose.

The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Bhardwaj and Johri challenging aspects of the SIR in Delhi.

On August 31, the EC published the draft electoral rolls following the SIR, reporting that approximately 47 lakh names had been omitted from a pre-revision electorate of around 1.45 crore.