Delhi High Court lets SIR-deleted voters apply through Form 6, with the Bench calling a petitioner’s fear of a false-declaration charge misplaced because the suggestion to file the form came from the Election Commission’s counsel, acting on the Electoral Registration Officer’s instructions.
New Delhi: Two voters whose names were struck off the Delhi electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) may now fill Form 6, and their applications are to be processed according to law, as the Delhi High Court closed their writ petition [Nilotpal Datta and Another v. Election Commission of India and Others].
The order of October 14, 2026 in W.P.(C) 14955/2026 came from a Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary. Petitioner no. 1 appeared in person. Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha appeared for the Election Commission of India (ECI) with Siddhartha Goswami, Ashish Shukla and Aditya Sachedeva, and CGSC Farman Ali appeared for the Union of India.
The Bench’s answer to the petitioner’s worry
Petitioner no. 1 had argued that furnishing a Form 6 would amount to a false declaration. The Bench held the concern misplaced, since the suggestion to file Form 6 had come from the ECI’s Standing Counsel acting on the Electoral Registration Officer’s instructions. The order states:
“…apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced.”
The writ proceedings were closed, with liberty to the petitioners to fill Form 6 if they wish, to be processed in accordance with law. The pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Prepones Hearing To October 28 On Delhi SIR Plea Against Form 6 Declaration
Why the two voters came to Court
The petitioners said they could not complete their enumeration forms while these were being filled because they had moved from their old address, and their names were consequently deleted from the roll. They asked the Court to quash Paragraph 4(c) of Annexure B to an ECI order, to restore and transpose their entries, and to direct that their Form 8 shifting-of-residence applications be processed. One prayer sought a recast of the procedure so that existing electors are not required to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.
The ECI’s position
Standing Counsel for the ECI submitted that the grievance could be redressed if the petitioners furnished Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He said the petitioner had been asked to fill the form on the previous hearing date, that the Electoral Registration Officer had offered assistance, and that the petitioners had not done so.
A larger contest over returning to the roll
This petition is one strand of a wider dispute over how voters removed during the Delhi SIR can return to the roll. On September 10, 2026, Justice Amit Bansal of the High Court declined to hear a plea by the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee president Devender Yadav and another against the “first time” declaration in Form 6, directing that it be filed as a Public Interest Litigation; the petitioners withdrew it.
In the Supreme Court, an application by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1188 of 2026, argued by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, contends that 47,56,722 electors (32.78 per cent of the pre-SIR roll) were excluded from the Delhi draft roll as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate, and that Form 6 requires them to affirm that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. They say a false declaration can attract imprisonment under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that the additional declaration form has no statutory backing.
Those are the applicants’ contentions; the Election Commission’s response has not been recorded in the material seen. A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi advanced that hearing from October 30 to October 28.
A narrow order
The order does not go far. It records the ECI’s position that Form 6 is the route open to these petitioners, and the Bench’s view that the petitioner’s fear of a false-declaration charge was misplaced on the facts before it. Whether the “first time” declaration is accurate for voters who were enrolled earlier, the question the applicants have raised in the Supreme Court and which that Court will take up on October 28, is not decided here. Voters in the petitioners’ position can read the order as recording that Form 6 applications will be processed in accordance with law, while the broader challenge remains undecided.
Case Title: Nilotpal Datta and Another v. Election Commission of India and Others [W.P.(C) 14955/2026, with CM Appl. 70130/2026 and CM Appl. 70131/2026]
Bench: Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner no. 1 in person; Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha with Siddhartha Goswami, Ashish Shukla and Aditya Sachedeva for the ECI; CGSC Farman Ali for the Union of India