The Supreme Court on Monday assured that voters whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra would not face prosecution for applying afresh to register as electors, while seeking the Election Commission of India’s response to a petition challenging the revision exercise.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the poll panel on a writ petition filed by Arun Anandagiri. The Court declined to grant interim relief without hearing the Election Commission and listed the matter for November 5.
“Nobody will be prosecuted,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said after Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, appearing for the petitioner, raised concerns over deleted voters being asked to submit Form 6, which is ordinarily used by first-time applicants seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls.
Datar submitted that an existing voter whose name had been removed from the draft electoral roll could face a legal dilemma if required to apply through a form containing a declaration that the applicant had not previously been enrolled or voted. He argued that filing such a declaration could expose the applicant to allegations of making a false statement.
The senior counsel contended that the Election Commission should introduce a separate mechanism for voters whose names had been deleted during the SIR, rather than requiring them to register afresh through Form 6. He maintained that an assurance against prosecution would not, by itself, resolve the underlying procedural difficulty.
The petitioner also sought directions to defer publication of Maharashtra’s final electoral roll and extend the deadline for filing claims and objections, which was due to expire on Monday. However, the Bench was disinclined to issue such directions without first hearing the Election Commission.
Datar argued that the scale of deletions in Maharashtra warranted judicial intervention before the electoral roll was finalised. Referring to the State’s approximately nine crore voters, he submitted that nearly three crore names had been removed following publication of the draft rolls, including around 1.22 crore cases involving what the authorities described as logical discrepancies.
He further submitted that the exercise had disproportionately affected urban areas such as Mumbai and Pune, where residents had shifted accommodation because of redevelopment projects. According to the petitioner’s submissions, several voters were marked as “person not found” at their earlier addresses despite having relocated rather than ceased to reside in the relevant areas.
Datar urged the Court to consider the State-specific circumstances, arguing that restoring the names of a large number of affected voters would require adequate time. He also pointed out that Maharashtra did not have an immediate election necessitating the expedited finalisation of the rolls.
The Bench, however, declined to extend the claims-and-objections deadline or restrain publication of the final electoral roll at this stage. Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the Court would consider appropriate directions after hearing the Election Commission.
The petition, Arun Anandagiri v. Election Commission of India, W.P. (C) No. 1330 of 2026, raises questions concerning the deletion of existing electors during the SIR and the procedure available to them for restoration of their names.
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek the poll panel’s response leaves the broader challenge pending, while its oral assurance that deleted voters would not be prosecuted addresses the immediate apprehension raised over the use of Form 6.
The post Supreme Court assures no prosecution of deleted voters filing Form 6, seeks ECI response on Maharashtra SIR appeared first on India Legal.