SIR row: SC questions ECI over Form 6 rule

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) why voters left out from the draft Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, are being compelled to submit Form 6 meant to for the registration of first-time voters. The SC suggested that a residual category could be introduced for voters who fail to submit the SIR enumeration form for other reasons.

“Form 6 is for someone seeking enrolment for the first time. Form 8 is for the correction or shifting of residence. Suppose a person was enrolled in Vasant Kunj and has now shifted to Sarita Vihar. That person can disclose the earlier polling booth, electoral roll particulars and voter number, and provide the new address. Why should that person be required to submit Form 6?” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant asked ECI.

A Bench of CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea alleging lack of transparency in notices issued to voters by election authorities in Delhi during SIR.

SIR row: SC questions ECI over Form 6 rule

“Why should someone who was already enrolled in the electoral roll be required to submit Form 6? Form 6 is meant for someone seeking enrolment for the first time,” the Bench noted.

The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Prashant Bhushan, told the SC that approximately 43 lakh people have been excluded from the draft voter list of Delhi on the ground that they had either shifted residence or were absent. Such voters were not added because they failed to submit enumeration forms. Bhushan added that many such voters have claimed that they were unaware that they had to submit these forms.

Enumeration forms were sent to outdated addresses, he claimed. He added that these voters were also enrolled in previous voter lists. Despite this, they were now being asked to submit Form 6 if they wished to be included in the revised voter rolls, Bhushan said, adding that “compelling such voters to submit Form 6 will amount to forcing them to make a false declaration that they have never voted till now.”

Justice Bagchi went on to observe that the right to vote is a crucial right that cannot be taken away lightly. “The right to vote is a vital right. Your (ECI) exercise must be conducted with due diligence. Suppose a voter was lax and did not respond. Does that mean he forfeits his right forever? A voter may have been unable to respond for various reasons. His name is now missing from the draft roll. He approaches the authorities with his documents, but you insist that he submit Form 6... How does he submit Form 6 when he was already enrolled? There is a structural incongruity which needs to be addressed,” Justice Bagchi said.

The SC further suggested that it is not sufficient to classify excluded voters under the categories of either shifted or absent. The SC suggested that there may be a residual category for those excluded, who wanted to become voter. “There may be a residual category of electors who could not respond because the form was not served or for other reasons. Such a person could be permitted to explain the reason for non-response and furnish the necessary documents... If the authorities are satisfied, his name can be included. If they are not satisfied, they can give reasons, which he can challenge,” the Court said.

Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu replied that the SIR is an evolving process and assured that steps are being taken to address the concerns raised by the petitioner. The SC, meanwhile, questioned why the ECI could not simply allow those who failed to submit enumeration forms on time to send in the same belatedly, instead of asking them to submit Form 6 or any other form. Such an option could be made available until the final voter list is published, the Court suggested.

The Court also urged the ECI to widely publicise the ongoing SIR exercise in simple language, to reduce the number of excluded voters. It said that the list of excluded voters must also be published widely, so that they can take remedial steps. The SC will hear the case next after two weeks.