The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, alleging large-scale voter deletions and questioning the procedure for restoring the names of existing voters missing from the draft rolls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to extend the deadline for filing claims and objections without hearing the Election Commission. The Court listed the matter for November 5.
Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar submitted that nearly 33 per cent of Maharashtra’s approximately nine crore voters had been struck off, while 1.22 crore cases had been flagged for logical discrepancies. Questioning the requirement for existing voters to apply afresh through Form 6, Datar said:
“
“Now what is happening is people are asked to file Form 6 which is meant for fresh voters. There is no provision for a person who is a voter for 3-4 elections, whose name is struck off and now he is asked to appear again.”
He sought an extension of the claims and objections deadline, which fell on October 26, arguing that Maharashtra had no immediate elections and that affected voters needed more time to restore their names. He also highlighted the difficulties faced by residents displaced by redevelopment projects in Mumbai and Pune.
“
“I just wanted to point out a unique feature of Bombay and Pune. There are a lot of redevelopment. That is old housing complexes are demolished and they are reconstructed. So where 1000 people were staying, they will get fresh flats and 2000 new people will come. So all these 1000 people will be given accommodation in some other part of Bombay,” he submitted.
He added that voters were being marked as untraceable at their previous addresses and consequently deleted from the rolls. He further submitted that voters displaced by redevelopment projects in Mumbai and Pune were being marked as “person not found” and subsequently deleted from the electoral rolls. He pointed out that Mumbai alone had around 3,500 redevelopment projects, while Pune had approximately 1,500, making it a particular concern for Maharashtra.
On Form 6, he argued that requiring existing voters to file a form meant for new voters could expose them to allegations of making a false declaration.
“
“If I file form 6 as an existing voter, it’s an offence because I am filing a false form. Form 6 is only for a new voter. Delhi High Court says don’t worry, they will not take prosecution. That is not the answer there,” he submitted, urging that the authorities must introduce a separate form for existing voters.
He also made submissions against the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Nilotpal Datta & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 14955/2026, in which the Court, on October 14, 2026, held that the petitioners’ apprehension of being accused of making a false declaration by filing Form 6 was “misplaced” and permitted them to submit the form, directing that their applications be processed in accordance with law.
He argued that assuring voters they would not be prosecuted for filing Form 6 did not address the underlying problem, since the form was meant for new voters and existing voters whose names had been deleted needed a separate mechanism. He submitted that filing Form 6 as an existing voter could amount to making a false declaration. Responding to his concern, the Chief Justice assured that, “Nobody will be prosecuted.”