The Delhi High Court has held that a voter whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) need not apprehend legal action for making a false declaration merely because he seeks re-inclusion through Form 6, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) assured the Court that the application could be processed in accordance with law.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary closed a petition filed by two voters challenging the procedure requiring them to seek fresh inclusion in the electoral rolls instead of restoration and transfer of their existing entries.
The Court observed that the apprehension of petitioner No. 1 was misplaced, particularly since the suggestion to submit Form 6 had come from the ECI’s standing counsel on the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer.
The petitioners had approached the High Court after their names were omitted from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise. They submitted that they could not complete the enumeration process within the prescribed timeline because they had moved from their earlier residential address.
Challenging the procedure adopted by the poll body, they sought restoration of their electoral entries and contended that requiring previously registered voters to apply afresh through Form 6 was legally inappropriate. They instead sought permission to use Form 8, which provides for correction and transposition of entries in the electoral roll.
Appearing for the ECI, standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha submitted that the petitioners could address their grievance by filing Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He also informed the Court that assistance from the Electoral Registration Officer had been offered to facilitate the process.
The suggestion was opposed by petitioner No. 1, who appeared in person and expressed concern that submitting Form 6 could amount to making a false declaration, given that the form is ordinarily used for fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.
Taking note of the ECI’s submission, the Bench declined to accept the apprehension and permitted the petitioners to pursue the suggested remedy.
“With these observations, the writ proceedings are closed. The petitioners, if so desired, may fill Form 6, which shall be processed in accordance with law,” the Court stated in its October 14 order.
The petitioners had also sought directions for restoration of their names under Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and for their entries to be corrected or transferred to the electoral roll corresponding to their present place of ordinary residence. They further sought consequential directions to ensure that the changes were reflected in the final electoral roll under Rule 22.
The High Court closed the proceedings without granting the substantive directions sought, leaving it open to the petitioners to submit Form 6. It clarified that any such application would be dealt with in accordance with law.
The dispute arises amid broader legal challenges to the ECI’s SIR exercise in Delhi, particularly over the procedure to be followed by voters whose names were excluded from the draft electoral rolls and who seek to have their names included again.
The post Delhi High Court says voter’s fear of false declaration over Form 6 during SIR is misplaced appeared first on India Legal.