The Supreme Court is reviewing the Election Commission of India's requirement for certain Delhi voters to use Form 6. Petitioners argue this form is for new voters only, while the Commission insists it is the correct procedure for those removed during the Special Intensive Revision.
Simple details
- The dispute centers on the use of Form 6 versus Form 8
- The ECI extended the objection deadline to November 25
- The Supreme Court previously called the ECI's stance an "error"
- Petitioners argue that using Form 6 could lead to prosecution
- The case involves voters removed during the Special Intensive Revision
What happened in court
On November 4, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court that the ECI was still insisting on Form 6.
This form is meant exclusively for new voters under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The CJI stated the case would be heard after the Deepavali holidays.
The Bench noted that the ECI had extended the deadline for filing claims and objections to November 25.
The earlier deadline for these submissions was October 30.
Why this dispute matters
This issue affects voters in Delhi who were deleted from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision.
They are now facing a choice between two different registration processes.
The core concern is that using the wrong form could lead to legal trouble.
Petitioners argued that forcing voters to misrepresent themselves as new applicants is an offence.
This specific offence attracts imprisonment under the law.
- Voters removed during the Special Intensive Revision in Delhi
- Activists and legal representatives challenging the current process
- Citizens concerned about potential criminal liability for form errors
- The Election Commission of India and its administrative procedures
How we got here
The Special Intensive Revision is a process to clean up electoral rolls by removing invalid entries.
This often follows census exercises to ensure accurate voter lists.
The ECI has been distributing enumeration forms as part of this revision in Delhi.
On October 28, the Supreme Court made it clear that the ECI was in “error” to force pre-existing voters to apply as new voters.
The apex court orally nudged the ECI that such purged voters should be allowed to use Form 8 or an enumeration form instead.
Petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates including Mr. Bhushan, Cheryl D’souza, and Neha Rathi, raised these concerns.
They submitted that the ECI was compelling voters to misrepresent themselves, which carries serious legal consequences.
What happens next
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 19.
The Bench asked the petitioners to file an application on the specific aspect of the legal risk faced by voters.
This step is necessary to address the concerns raised by the advocates.
The CJI assured the petitioners that the voters need not fear, as the Supreme Court was already dealing with the case.
The court emphasized that it is actively managing the matter to protect the rights of the affected individuals.
- The Supreme Court hearing scheduled for November 19
- The ECI's potential extension of the November 25 deadline
- The filing of a new application by the petitioners
Reality check
The legal risk remains a significant hurdle for many voters.
Even with court reassurances, the fear of prosecution may deter some from filing claims.
This could limit their ability to be re-enrolled before the next election.
The process is complex and involves multiple forms with distinct legal implications.
Voters must carefully distinguish between being a new applicant and a re-enrolled voter.
Who should buy and who should skip
- Citizens in Delhi affected by the Special Intensive Revision
- Legal professionals tracking election law developments
- Activists working on voter rights and electoral integrity
- General readers with no connection to Delhi electoral rolls
- Those who do not plan to vote in upcoming elections
- Individuals who have already successfully re-enrolled
Verdict
This dispute is critical for protecting the voting rights of Delhi citizens.
The Supreme Court's involvement provides a necessary check on administrative procedures.
Voters should stay informed about the correct forms to use to avoid legal issues.
Key facts at a glance
- The dispute centers on the use of Form 6 versus Form 8
- The ECI extended the objection deadline to November 25
- The Supreme Court previously called the ECI's stance an "error"
- Petitioners argue that using Form 6 could lead to prosecution
- The case involves voters removed during the Special Intensive Revision
Read the news report this explainer is based on: ECI still insisting on Form 6 for excluded voters in Delhi SIR, petitioners make urgent mentioning in Supreme Court.
Source: Ebenezer News Explainer Desk · Ebenezer News Explainer Desk. Published 4 Nov 2026, 07:12 am.
