Why should a voter already on the 2026 roll file a form meant for first-time voters? That is what the Supreme Court asked about Form 6 in Delhi SIR, giving the Election Commission of India two weeks to report back.
New Delhi: Persons who could not fill up enumeration forms during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi’s electoral rolls have been told by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file Form 6 and be registered as new voters, though they were on the 2026 roll. The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned that direction. The ECI told the Court it would consider accepting late enumeration forms and would extend the October 30 deadline if needed [Anjali Bhardwaj and Another v. Election Commission of India and Another].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard an application in the pending writ petition filed by transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the applicants. At the start of the hearing Bhushan said the ECI had filed nothing in response and had only issued a press note the previous day; the ECI’s counsel said a note had been filed.
What the Bench said from the chair
The Bench asked why electors already on the 2026 roll should have to file Form 6, which it described as meant for first-time voters, when about 43 lakh names were left out of the draft roll as shifted or absent. Electors on the roll who had merely shifted, it indicated, should be allowed to use Form 8 and not be made to declare that they were never enrolled.
Temporary absence, the Bench remarked, is not a shift of residence, and being away on work for a month or two does not make an elector permanently shifted. Justice Bagchi asked whether a voter who failed to return the enumeration form forfeits the right to vote forever, calling it:
“a structural incongruity which needs to be addressed.”
The ECI’s procedure, the Bench noted, appeared to offer no remedy to electors who never shifted but were never served the form. Until the final roll is prepared, it observed, there appeared to be no reason to reject a form merely because the deadline had passed, and the CJI asked why the ECI should insist on a cutoff date when no Delhi election is imminent.
Delhi has a large floating population of labourers, hawkers and daily wagers, the Bench said, and the burden should not fall entirely on them to approach the ECI. The lists of excluded names, it said, should be easily accessible, in simple Hindi and local languages, and should explain what follows if a person does not respond. It also questioned how the ECI could reopen names already in the 2003 reference roll through an omnibus exercise.
The applicants’ complaint
The applicants contend that voters whose names were left out in the Delhi SIR are being asked to apply through Form 6, which carries a declaration that the applicant has never been enrolled or has never voted before. A false declaration, they say, can attract imprisonment. They want such voters to be allowed to use Form 8, the form meant for shifted voters, or to be given another suitable form. These are the applicants’ contentions, and the Court has expressed no view on their merits.
On October 14 the Bench advanced the hearing from October 30 to October 28, after Bhushan pointed out that October 30 was also the last date for correcting deletions; the CJI said the Court was considering an order to address the concern. Earlier, on October 5, in the separate batch of petitions on the SIR and the Chief Election Commissioner, the CJI had said that the Court had not approved a modified Form 6 and wanted to see the record of who had modified it. The ECI’s stand, as placed before the Court in that batch, was that the Form 6 declaration for the SIR stood upheld by the Court’s Bihar SIR ruling.
Figures and rival positions
Bhushan relied on the ECI’s own figures. About 47 lakh electors did not fill enumeration forms, he said; around 43 lakh were marked permanently shifted or absent and about two lakh as deceased, with some entries disputed. About 31.59 lakh were shown as permanently shifted and roughly 11 lakh as untraceable. Many, he argued, never received forms, which carried their old addresses. He also flagged about 33 lakh unmapped electors and 19.34 lakh marked for logical discrepancies. Shifted voters, he submitted, should be allowed enumeration forms and Form 8, as requiring Form 6 would make them declare falsely that they had never voted before.
The ECI’s counsel said shifting does not automatically mean deletion, that agents collect enumeration forms, that doors had not been closed, and that camps had been held to sensitise voters. The CJI responded that the forms assume electors still live at their previous addresses.
From Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar
Take an existing voter moving from Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar, the CJI said: that person could disclose the former roll entry and the new address in Form 8, unlike a person enrolling in Delhi for the first time, who needs Form 6. Justice Bagchi asked whether the ECI was using the 2003 list or the latest roll as its basis, and the ECI’s counsel said the latest pre-SIR roll of 2026 would be the basis. A fresh inquiry may be understandable against the 2003 list, Justice Bagchi said, but with the 2026 roll as the baseline he questioned asking a shifted voter to file Form 6 declaring that the name was never listed. He added that Forms 6 and 8 cannot be changed, but a declaration may be added.
Publish the list, says CJI
The CJI asked the ECI to trace those marked as shifted and to investigate doubtful Form 8 claims. He suggested publishing a list of the roughly 43 lakh people the ECI could not contact, asking them to approach the nearest Booth Level Officer and fill Form 8. Justice Bagchi said enumeration forms would be enough before the final roll. The ECI’s counsel said inclusion remains possible until the last date of nominations and offered a new form, saying it should not be called Form 6. The CJI asked counsel to consider keeping Forms 6 and 8 open without a cutoff, with proof of shifting, and said the matter would be taken up after two weeks, with the ECI to keep inviting Forms 6 and 8 in the meantime. The ECI’s counsel said steps would be taken within two weeks and time would also be extended.
What remains open
Justice Bagchi said the Bihar orders were not a final ruling on every SIR question and that the legality of the “logical discrepancy” exercise remains open. The Commission has told the Court it would consider accepting late enumeration forms and would extend the October 30 deadline if required, and it has two weeks to report back.
Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj and Another v. Election Commission of India and Another [W.P.(C) No. 1188 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the applicants; the Election Commission of India through its counsel