SC agrees to ‘take care’ of Delhi voters whose names were removed

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court said it would intervene for Delhi voters whose names were deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [1].
• The dispute: to get back on the roll, these voters are allegedly being made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to apply as fresh applicants. They must declare they never voted before, or face imprisonment [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: it brings together the right to vote, the ECI's powers over electoral rolls, due process before deleting a voter, and judicial review of a constitutional body. All are core to GS-II (Polity).

2. Why in the News

• 14 Oct 2026 (Wednesday): A Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant agreed to intervene. The CJI remarked: "We are thinking of passing an order which will take care of this issue" [1].
• Petitioners: Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi [1].
• Relief sought: the ECI should either allow Form 8 (the form for shifted voters) or create a new form for voters deleted in the SIR [1].
• The Delhi SIR case was listed for 30 Oct 2026, the same day as the last date for claims and objections. The CJI moved the hearing up to 28 Oct 2026 [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional base (static, not retrieved): Art. 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections. Art. 326 provides adult suffrage at age 18+. [Static — verify against Bare Act]
• Statutory base (static, not retrieved): The Representation of the People Act, 1950:
• Sec. 21 covers preparation and revision of rolls. Sec. 21(3) lets the ECI order a special revision at any time.
• Sec. 22 covers correction of entries. Sec. 23 covers inclusion of names.
• The detailed procedure is in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

• [Static — verify]

• Two kinds of revision:

• Summary revision is the routine, annual update of the existing roll.

• Intensive revision prepares the roll afresh through house-to-house enumeration. The SIR is an intensive revision of this kind.

• Milestones (static, not retrieved):

• Bihar SIR was ordered by the ECI in June 2025. It was challenged in the SC, and during that litigation the Court directed that Aadhaar be accepted as an identity document. [Verify]
• The SIR was later extended to other States/UTs.

• The Delhi SIR is now in the claims-and-objections stage [1].

• Precedent (static): Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO (1995). The SC held that a person already on the roll cannot be deleted without notice and a fair inquiry. [Verify]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Body conducting SIR	Election Commission of India [1]
Constitutional provision	Art. 324 (ECI control of rolls); Art. 326 (adult suffrage) [static]
Parent statute for rolls	RP Act, 1950 (Secs. 21–23) [static]
Procedural rules	Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [static]
Form 6	Inclusion of a new elector [static]
Form 7	Objection to an inclusion or a request for deletion [static]
Form 8	Shifting of residence, correction of entries, replacement EPIC, PwD marking [S1 for "shifted voters"; rest static]
False declaration	Sec. 31, RP Act 1950: up to 1 year imprisonment, or fine, or both [static — explains the "imprisonment" threat in S1]
SC Bench	Headed by CJI Surya Kant [1]
Key dates (Delhi)	Hearing advanced from 30 Oct to 28 Oct 2026; claims/objections deadline 30 Oct 2026 [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The right to vote is a statutory right (Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, 1982; Kuldip Nayar, 2006). Voting itself is also linked to Art. 19(1)(a) expression (PUCL, 2013, the NOTA case). [Static]
• Forcing previously enrolled electors to declare they "never voted before" means signing a false declaration. This could expose them to prosecution [1].
• The question is whether the ECI's power under Art. 324 fills gaps in the law or overrides procedural fairness (Mohinder Singh Gill, 1978). [Static]

Governance / Ethical

• Burden of proof shifts from the State to the citizen, which inverts Lal Babu Hussein. [Static]
• There is no clear way to restore a deleted name. The petitioners say the existing forms do not fit, which is why they want Form 8 or a new form [1].
• Transparency: the petitioners, Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, are transparency activists [1].

Social

• Deletions hit migrants, the urban poor, renters, women who changed address after marriage, and slum dwellers hardest. These groups have weak documentation. [Analytical]
• Leaving people off the roll undermines the universal adult franchise under Art. 326.

Administrative

• The timing is tight. The claims deadline (30 Oct) fell on the same day as the original listing, so the CJI advanced the hearing [1].
• The Booth Level Officer (BLO), ERO and AERO handle verification capacity. Delhi's large migrant population raises the risk of errors. [Static/analytical]

Federal / Political

• The SIR has been rolled out across States. Opposition parties claim mass disenfranchisement, while the ECI says it is purifying the rolls of dead, shifted and duplicate entries. [Analytical]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Jun 2025 onward: Bihar SIR, its SC challenge, and the Aadhaar direction. [Static — not retrieved; verify]
• Nov 2025: Surya Kant sworn in as CJI. [Static — verify]
• 2025–26: SIR extended to more States/UTs, including Delhi [S1 for Delhi].
• 14 Oct 2026: The SC agrees to "take care" of deleted Delhi voters and advances the hearing to 28 Oct 2026 [1].
• 30 Oct 2026: Last date for claims and objections in the Delhi SIR [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SIR is conducted by the Election Commission of India, not the State Election Commission [1].
• Form 8 is for shifting of residence and correction of entries; it is not for a new enrolment [S1; static].
• Form 6 is for new voter registration. [Static]
• Form 7 is for objection/deletion. [Static]
• The ECI's power over electoral rolls comes from Art. 324. [Static]
• Art. 326 gives adult suffrage from 18 years, lowered from 21 by the 61st Amendment, 1988. [Static]
• Electoral rolls are governed by the RP Act, 1950, not the RP Act, 1951 (which governs the conduct of elections). [Static]
• Sec. 21(3), RP Act 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision at any time. [Static]
• A false declaration about enrolment is punishable under Sec. 31, RP Act 1950 (up to 1 year). [Static]
• The Delhi SIR plea was argued by Prashant Bhushan for petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj & Amrita Johri [1].
• The Bench was headed by CJI Surya Kant [1].
• Art. 329(b) bars courts from questioning an election except through an election petition. A roll revision before the election, however, can be reviewed by the courts. [Static]

8. Why a Deleted Voter Should Not Have to Fill a New-Voter Form

• The form makes an honest voter sign something untrue
• Form 6 is meant for people joining the roll for the first time. To get back on the roll, deleted Delhi voters are allegedly being asked to use it and declare they never voted before [1].
• Most of them were on the roll and did vote earlier. If they sign, the declaration is false. A false declaration is punishable under Sec. 31 of the RP Act, 1950.

• So the voter has two bad choices: sign a false statement, or stay off the roll.

• The likely result is that people quietly stop trying

• A poor migrant worker who hears "imprisonment" will often just not apply.
• Nobody refuses them on paper. They simply fail to return, and the deletion becomes permanent.

• This is why the petitioners asked for Form 8 or a separate new form, not a deadline extension [1].

• The ECI and the Court disagree on what the Court approved

• On 26 Sep 2026 the ECI said the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached to Form 6 [7].
• The Court's May 2026 judgment had examined an earlier declaration (Annexure D of the June 2025 order). The newer version asks applicants for extra details linking themselves or their relatives to old SIR rolls [7].
• On 5 Oct 2026 the CJI said the Court had not approved any modified Form 6 [8]. Justice Bagchi later said there is "no adjudication on the new Form 6" [9].
• So the ECI was relying on approval for a form the Court had never examined. That is why the Delhi plea is a real dispute, not a technicality.

9. What the Bihar Numbers Show About Wrongful Deletion

• The first deletion figure was much bigger than the final one
• Bihar's draft roll (1 Aug 2025) had 7.24 crore voters. More than 65 lakh names from the earlier roll were missing [4].
• The final roll had 7.42 crore voters, 17.87 lakh more than the draft [6].
• The Supreme Court later noted that the drop of about 65 lakh shrank to about 47 lakh after claims and corrections [2].

• So around 18 lakh people who were first left out came back through the claims stage. A deletion list is therefore a first guess, not a final truth.

• The biggest category of deletion was also the hardest to prove

• The ECI gave three reasons for the draft deletions: dead (22.34 lakh), "permanently shifted/absent" (36.28 lakh) and enrolled at more than one place (7.01 lakh) [4].
• Death and double entries can be checked against records. "Absent" often just means the Booth Level Officer (BLO, the official who visits homes) found nobody at home.

• Delhi is a city of renters and migrant workers, who are often out at work or away seasonally. This weakest category is likely to be large there.

• Bihar's safeguards came only because the Court stepped in

• The ECI did not publish the deleted names with reasons on its own. On 14 Aug 2025 the Court ordered it to put the list online, searchable by EPIC number (the voter ID card number) [3].
• On 22 Aug 2025 the Court allowed deleted voters to file claims online using Aadhaar or other accepted documents [5].
• Bihar settled how deleted voters could find their names and file claims. It did not settle which form they must use. That gap is now the Delhi dispute.

10. The ECI's Strongest Case, and Where It Falls Short

• The ECI's case: a clean roll is itself a constitutional duty
• Dead voters and double entries are real. In Bihar alone, more than 29 lakh names were removed as dead or enrolled twice [4].
• Such entries can be misused for bogus voting (impersonation, where someone votes in another person's name).
• In May 2026 the Supreme Court upheld the SIR. It said the ECI had not gone beyond its statutory powers and linked roll revision to fair elections [2].

• This much is correct. The Court will not stop the SIR, and should not.

• Where it falls short: a right to revise is not a right to make return harder

• The May 2026 judgment approved the revision itself. It did not approve the newer Form 6 declaration [7][8].
• The ECI told the Court in Bihar that no name would be deleted without notice and a reasoned order [10]. Making a wrongly deleted voter return as a "new" voter, under threat of prosecution, defeats the purpose of that promise.

• Lal Babu Hussein (1995) puts the burden on the State to prove a listed voter is ineligible. The new form puts the burden back on the voter.

• A fair conclusion for Mains

• Purifying the roll and protecting the voter are both duties of the ECI under Art. 324.
• The test is not whether names are removed. It is whether a wrongly removed citizen can come back easily and without risk of prosecution.

11. What the Court Can Order Before the Delhi Deadline

• Supreme Court: order a proper way back onto the roll
• Direct the ECI to accept Form 8, or notify a separate restoration form, for anyone deleted in the SIR. This is exactly the relief sought [1].

• The form should ask the voter to confirm their earlier entry, not deny it. That removes the false-declaration trap under Sec. 31.

• Supreme Court: apply the Bihar safeguards to Delhi

• Order the deleted Delhi names to be published online with reasons, searchable by EPIC number, as it did for Bihar on 14 Aug 2025 [3].

• Make sure Aadhaar is accepted for claims, as the Court ordered in Bihar [5].

• Supreme Court: give voters time to use the fix

• The claims deadline is 30 Oct 2026 and the hearing is on 28 Oct [1]. A new form announced two days before the deadline is of little use.

• The Court can extend the claims window for deleted voters only, so the rest of the timeline is not delayed.

• ECI: separate "absent" from "ineligible"

• In Bihar, "shifted/absent" was the largest deletion category, at 36.28 lakh [4].
• The ECI could require at least one more BLO visit, and a written notice, before an "absent" voter is deleted. This would match its own promise in Bihar of no deletion without notice and a reasoned order [10].

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bihar SIR draft roll (Aug 2025) left out 65 lakh+ names. Reasons: 22.34 lakh dead, 36.28 lakh shifted/absent, 7.01 lakh enrolled at more than one place [4]
• Data: The Bihar drop shrank from about 65 lakh to about 47 lakh after claims (7.89 crore → 7.42 crore electors) [2]
• Law/Case: SC judgment, May 2026, upheld the SIR as within the ECI's statutory powers and sent citizenship doubts to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [2]
• Law/Case: SC order, 14 Aug 2025, told the ECI to publish Bihar's deleted names with reasons, searchable by EPIC number [3]. Order of 22 Aug 2025 allowed claims with Aadhaar [5]
• Law/Case: CJI, 5 Oct 2026: the Court has not approved any modified Form 6 [8]
• Law/Case: Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO (1995): no deletion of a listed voter without notice and a fair inquiry. Sec. 31, RP Act 1950: false declaration is punishable

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: "Salient features of the Representation of People's Act"; "Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies"; "Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary".
• GS-IV: Accountability of public institutions and procedural fairness.
• Question stems: 1. "Purifying electoral rolls must not come at the cost of disenfranchising eligible citizens." Critically examine this in the context of the Special Intensive Revision. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the scope of the Election Commission's plenary powers under Article 324 in matters of electoral roll revision. Where does judicial review stand? (10 marks) 3. Universal adult franchise is meaningless without an inclusive electoral roll. Suggest institutional safeguards against wrongful deletion. (10 marks)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Bihar SIR litigation (2025): the direct precedent for the Delhi challenge.
• Aadhaar–EPIC linkage / Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021: an alternative way to deduplicate rolls.
• Chief Election Commissioner and Other ECs Act, 2023: appointment process and the independence debate around the ECI.
• Art. 329 & election petitions: limits on judicial intervention in electoral matters.
• Citizenship verification vs. electoral enrolment: overlap with the NRC and the Citizenship Act debates.
• Remote voting / migrant voters: the root cause of "shifted" deletions.
• Delimitation: another exercise that reshapes the electoral map.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): This is the exercise that deleted the Delhi voters and is the subject of the dispute.
• Electoral roll (Polity): The dispute is about how names are removed from and restored to the roll.
• Right to vote (Polity): Explains why deletion matters and why the right is statutory, not fundamental.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): The ECI runs the revision and controls the rolls, and its powers are being challenged.
• Representation of the People Act 1950 (Polity): This law governs roll preparation and revision, and its Sec. 31 explains the imprisonment threat.
• Judicial review (Polity): The Supreme Court is stepping in to check a constitutional body's action.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RP Act 1950 vs. 1951: the rolls fall under the 1950 Act, while conduct of elections and disqualifications fall under the 1951 Act.
• Form numbers: Form 6 (new), Form 7 (deletion/objection), Form 8 (shift/correction). Aspirants often swap 6 and 8 [S1 for Form 8].
• ECI vs. SEC: the SIR for Parliament and Assembly rolls is done by the ECI. State Election Commissions (Art. 243K/243ZA) handle local-body rolls.
• Summary vs. intensive revision: an intensive revision prepares the roll afresh; a summary revision updates the existing one.
• Right to vote: the SC has called it a statutory, not a fundamental, right. Do not conflate it with Art. 326's constitutional mandate.