The Delhi High Court has closed proceedings in a petition challenging the deletion of the petitioners’ names from the electoral roll after they could not complete the enumeration process following a change of residence. The Court observed that the petitioners could apply through Form 6, which would be processed in accordance with law.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary passed the order.
The petitioners had challenged Paragraph 4(c) of an Election Commission of India order dated June 24, 2025, as applied to Delhi through a communication dated May 14, 2026. They sought directions to restore their electoral entries and permit correction and transposition of their existing entries through Form 8 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, instead of requiring them to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.
The grievance arose because the petitioners had shifted from their previous address and, consequently, could not fill in the enumeration forms. Their names were subsequently deleted from the electoral roll.
Appearing for the Election Commission of India, Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha submitted that the petitioners’ grievance could be addressed if they furnished Form 6 under Rule 25(2), read with Rule 13(1)(a) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He further submitted that he had made the same suggestion at the previous hearing and assured that the Electoral Registration Officer would provide assistance.
However, the Petitioner, appearing in person, opposed the suggestion, stating that furnishing Form 6 would amount to making a false declaration.
The Bench rejected this apprehension, observing that the suggestion to submit Form 6 had come from the Election Commission’s standing 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 observed.
Accordingly, the Court closed the writ proceedings, clarifying that the petitioners, if they so desired, could fill Form 6, which would be processed in accordance with law. The pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Background
The Form 6 controversy amid the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) centres on the use of a form ordinarily meant for new voter registration to re-enrol people whose names have been omitted from electoral rolls during the revision exercise. While Form 6 is prescribed for the inclusion of a new elector, Form 8 is generally used by existing electors for shifting residence and correcting or transposing their entries. The controversy has arisen because previously registered voters fear that applying through Form 6 could require them to make a declaration inconsistent with their earlier enrolment, potentially exposing them to allegations of furnishing false information. The issue has also raised questions about the additional SIR-related declaration introduced in the online registration process and whether changes to the prescribed form could be made without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
