EC tells states deleted voters can file Form 6 without fear of prosecution, citing Delhi High Court order

The Commission anchored its letter in a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14 October 2026. The case was brought by two voters whose names were removed from Delhi's rolls during the revision. They said they had moved from their old address and could not complete their enumeration forms, so their entries were deleted. They asked the court to quash a paragraph of an Election Commission order, to restore their entries or transpose them to the new address, to process their Form 8 applications for a change of residence, and to recast the procedure so that existing electors need not seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary closed the petition without deciding the larger question. The court noted that the suggestion to file Form 6 had come from the Commission's standing counsel, acting on the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, and held that the petitioner's apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration was misplaced. The petitioners were left free to file Form 6, to be processed according to law. The order did not decide whether the "first time" declaration is accurate for a voter who was previously enrolled, and that question is the one now before the Supreme Court.

The larger dispute in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard that question on 28 October in a writ petition by activists Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri on the revision in Delhi. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners and Dama Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission.

The numbers explain why this matters. The Delhi roll covers about 1.45 crore voters. Enumeration forms began to be issued around 30 June, and about 97 lakh voters responded while about 47 lakh did not. Non-responders were categorised as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate. Mr Bhushan told the court that of the 47 lakh deleted voters, about 43 lakh were shown as permanently shifted or absent, and that many of them never received an enumeration form. His argument was that the Commission does not allow these people to use Form 8, the form for a change of address, and requires Form 6 instead, which treats a long-standing voter as a new one. The Commission's position is that the latest roll before the revision, the 2026 roll, is the base, and that those deleted are treated as first-time applicants for the purposes of the exercise.

The bench was sceptical. Justice Bagchi asked whether a voter should permanently lose the right to be on the roll for failing to respond to an enumeration form, and described the right to vote as vital. The Chief Justice asked how the Commission would reach people who had moved instead of placing the whole burden on them. The court suggested several fixes: a clarification that Form 6 applies only to first-time voters in the national capital territory, a residual category for people who were on the 2026 roll but could not collect or return enumeration forms, with a declaration of reasons, publication of the list of deleted persons with a request to contact the nearest Booth Level Officer to file Form 8, more time for enumeration forms, and no rush given that Delhi is not going to the polls soon.

Counsel for the Commission said it would examine the concerns and take remedial steps, including considering an extension of the deadline and a residual category. He added that the Commission would provide a form for those people that would not be called Form 6. The matter is to be heard again after two weeks, which puts the next hearing in mid-November.

What it means for voters

For a voter who finds his or her name missing from the draft roll, the practical position today is better than it was last week. A letter to the state election officers means the officials who receive the forms have been told that the declaration is not a trap, and the Delhi High Court has already said the fear was misplaced where the advice to file Form 6 came from the officials themselves. A voter should check the draft roll, keep proof of residence and any earlier voter identity card, and file within the claims period announced by the state election office.

What remains unsettled is the form itself. A letter from the Commission is an administrative clarification, not an amendment of the form or the rules. The text of Form 6 still asks for a declaration that fits a first-time applicant, and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether long-standing voters should be pushed through that route at all. If the court accepts the suggestion of a separate residual category, deleted voters could soon be asked to fill a different form that reflects their real history. Until then, the clarification removes the immediate fear of prosecution but leaves the underlying question, whether an exercise meant to clean the rolls should require a voter who has done nothing wrong to re-apply as a new voter, with the court.