Can you punish laxity by forfeiting the right to vote forever, Supreme Court asks ECI

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28, 2026) questioned the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to deprive citizens forever of their right to vote simply because they were lax in returning enumeration forms during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has disenfranchised nearly 13 crore voters across the country.

“Let us say a voter was lax, inert or did not respond, will that be a ground for you, the Election Commission of India, to forfeit his or her right to vote forever? We will answer that,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a judge on the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, addressed the poll body.

The court said the ECI was in “error” to force pre-existing voters, deleted from the electoral roll, to apply as new voters under Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Petitioners, activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, submitted that the ECI was compelling voters to misrepresent themselves as new applicants, an offence which attracts imprisonment.

“You cannot touch these Forms. Form 6, Form 7 [for objection to proposed inclusion/deletion of names in the existing electoral roll], and Form 8 [application for shifting of residence] are cast in stone… You cannot make changes to them,” Justice Bagchi said.

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, said the court’s Bihar SIR judgment on May 27 had mentioned that the poll body had “residuary powers”.

Justice Bagchi asked why the ECI had not then used these residuary powers to reach out to voters who had not responded to enumeration forms. “You could have asked for a declaration, giving them a chance, giving them time to explain why they did not respond to the enumeration forms,” the judge said.

Besides, Justice Bagchi clarified that the Bihar judgment was not a “binding precedent”.

“First and foremost, in Bihar SIR, the EC had not undertaken ‘logical discrepancy’ as a category. We had permitted you in West Bengal as an interim arrangement… We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of ‘logical discrepancy’,” Justice Bagchi spoke for the Bench.

Justice Bagchi asked how voters, included in the 2003 electoral roll after an intensive revision, could be purged in the name of ‘logical discrepancy’ in 2026.

Mr. Bhushan said the ECI’s approach to voters in the Delhi SIR was short-sighted.

“It ran like ‘you were absent at your address when we came with the enumeration form, you are deleted from the electoral roll’. Of the 1,45,10,299 electors in Delhi at the start of the SIR, 47,56,722 were marked as having not returned their enumeration forms on account of being absent, shifted, dead or duplicate entries,” he submitted.

The court asked the ECI whether a person who had temporarily moved out of Delhi for a month-long assignment, and missed filling out his enumeration form, would be considered as ‘permanently shifted’.

“If a voter has moved residence from Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar, is it not enough for him to simply disclose his voter details to continue in the electoral roll,” Chief Justice Kant asked the ECI.

Justice Bagchi said the requirement for voters to apply through Form 6 and Form 7 would arise only after the final voter list was published, and not during the draft stage.

“Why don’t you allow the deleted voters to continue to submit their enumeration forms? There is a structural incongruity between your manner of conduct of SIR and the Form 6 and 7 regime. Why should voters be asked to apply with Form 6, they can just put in their enumeration forms belatedly… Keep it open-ended. Don’t stick to any timelines for voters,” Justice Bagchi addressed the ECI.

Chief Justice Kant asked why the ECI had to rush the SIR in Delhi, with no elections around. The last date for filing claims and objections for inclusion/deletions in the Delhi electoral roll is October 30.

“Don’t go by any timeline. Nothing is happening in Delhi,” Chief Justice Kant told Mr. Naidu.

Mr. Naidu said voters were never ‘deleted’ as they could return to the electoral roll at any time before the filing of nominations for an election. The senior counsel assured to extend the dates, and said the poll body would explore allowing delayed filing of enumeration forms in Delhi.

The court said physical lists of the deleted voters, in vernacular language, could be put up at every block across Delhi so that people would know their status.

“Meanwhile, people who are applying to vote in Delhi for the first time can apply through Form 6. But pre-existing voters in Delhi, who were deleted because they had shifted residence within the city, can file Form 8… If you have suspicions, you write to them for documents for verification,” Chief Justice Kant suggested to the ECI.

Giving the ECI two weeks’ time to consider course correction, the CJI advised the poll body that often it was best to go for the “simplest remedy”.

India / court / judiciary (system of justice) / Election Commission of India / Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls