Delhi's voter list controversy has reached another flashpoint after petitioners challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls questioned the Election Commission of India's latest clarification before the Supreme Court. The dispute centres on whether voters whose names were deleted from the draft electoral roll should be required to submit Form 6 to regain their place on the list, even if they had been registered voters in the past. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 19, giving the petitioners an opportunity to formally challenge the Commission's position.

During an oral mentioning before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on November 4, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, raised concerns over the ECI's November 3 clarification. He argued that the Commission's latest statement appeared inconsistent with the Supreme Court's observations during the October 28 hearing. According to the petitioners, the Court had indicated that voters whose names appeared in the 2026 electoral rolls should not be compelled to register themselves as new voters through Form 6 simply because their names were missing from the draft list.

Chief Justice Surya Kant responded that the matter was already pending before the Court and there was no reason for affected voters to become apprehensive. He asked the petitioners to file an application specifically highlighting the Election Commission's clarification. The bench indicated that the issue would be taken up on November 19. The Chief Justice also suggested that the Court could consider directing an extension of the deadline if circumstances required it.

The dispute intensified after the Election Commission issued its clarification to Chief Electoral Officers across States and Union Territories on November 3. The communication stated that electors whose names do not appear in the draft electoral roll can submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final list, irrespective of whether they had been registered previously.

The Commission maintained that submitting Form 6 under these circumstances would not automatically amount to a false declaration. It also clarified that electoral registration officers would not initiate action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, merely because a previously registered voter submitted Form 6 during or after the SIR process. This protection applies provided the individual is not already enrolled in another Parliamentary or Assembly constituency and the declaration otherwise complies with the law.

The ECI also referred to the Delhi High Court's October 14 judgment in Nilotpal Datta v. ECI. The High Court had addressed concerns raised by two voters whose names were deleted after they failed to complete the enumeration process. It observed that their apprehension of facing prosecution for submitting Form 6 was misplaced and that their applications could be processed according to law.

However, the petitioners maintain that the Commission's approach does not adequately address the problem. Their central argument is that voters who were already registered should not be forced to make a declaration suggesting that they are seeking electoral registration for the first time. Form 6 contains such a declaration, creating concerns about how previously enrolled voters should respond when their names disappear from the draft electoral roll.

During the October 28 proceedings, the Supreme Court questioned the ECI's insistence on Form 6 for voters excluded because they had not submitted enumeration forms. The bench suggested that individuals who had shifted residences could be allowed to use Form 8, which is designed for changes of address and corrections in electoral records. Those who had been unable to submit enumeration forms should also be given an opportunity to complete that process.

The Court further suggested that the Election Commission publish the list of deleted voters and facilitate communication between affected individuals and Booth Level Officers (BLOs). Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, had agreed to examine these suggestions and consider possible corrective measures.

The scale of the controversy is significant. Approximately 47.56 lakh electors were excluded from Delhi's draft electoral roll under the Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) category. Petitioners cited around 43 lakh voters categorised as permanently shifted or absent during the October 28 hearing. They argued that many had not received enumeration forms but were nevertheless being asked to apply afresh through Form 6.

According to figures highlighted by the petitioners, approximately 31.59 lakh deleted voters were classified as permanently shifted, while another 11.73 lakh were categorised as absent or untraceable. These figures have intensified concerns about whether the revision process has provided sufficient opportunities for affected voters to establish their eligibility and restore their names.

In a November 3 communication to the Chief Election Commissioner, the petitioners urged the ECI and Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer to establish a simpler mechanism. They called for Form 8 and enumeration forms to be accepted from voters listed under the ASDD category without forcing them to submit Form 6. They also demanded that the deleted voters' list and relevant application forms be made available at booth or block levels, alongside assistance from election officials and adequate publicity in Hindi and other relevant languages.

The pending Supreme Court petition also raises concerns about the Election Commission's failure to disclose adequate information about voters who received notices over alleged logical discrepancies during the Delhi SIR exercise.

The November 19 hearing is now expected to bring the dispute over Form 6 and the treatment of deleted voters back before the Supreme Court. The key question remains whether the existing procedure adequately protects previously registered electors or whether additional safeguards are required to prevent eligible voters from facing unnecessary hurdles in restoring their names to the electoral roll.