Will take care of those deleted in Delhi rolls: SC

1. At a Glance

• An application before the Supreme Court challenges how electors deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral roll can get their names restored. The SC has said it "will take care of" those deleted. [1]
• 47,56,722 electors were left off Delhi's draft electoral roll under the ASDD category (Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate). [1]
• The central issue is a procedural anomaly. Electors who were already enrolled must use Form 6, the form meant for first-time inclusion, and declare that they are applying "for the first time". [1]
• For UPSC, this connects the right to vote, the Election Commission's (EC) roll-revision powers, delegated legislation (the Registration of Electors Rules) and due process in voter deletion. It is GS-II core material.

2. Why in the News

• The SC heard an application asking it to direct the Election Commission (EC) to set up a mechanism for restoring or including deleted voters that does not make them apply as first-time voters. The report appeared in The Hindu on 15 October 2026, page 16, Chennai edition. [1]
• The petitioners argue that making previously enrolled voters sign the Form 6 first-time declaration is "factually incorrect and wholly inapplicable" to them. [1]
• They warn that these voters could be prosecuted under Section 31, RPA 1950 for making a false declaration. [1]
• They also challenge an additional declaration form that must be filed with Form 6. They say it has no force of law and should be struck down. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

Note: my web retrieval failed, so the bullets marked † below are general static knowledge and were not checked against a source. Verify them before relying on them.

• Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control over preparing electoral rolls. †
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 covers the preparation and revision of rolls. Section 21 provides for summary, intensive and special revisions. †
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are delegated legislation under RPA 1950. They prescribe forms including Form 6. [1]
• Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995): the SC held that a person already on the roll cannot be removed without due process and a fair hearing. †
• June 2025: the ECI ordered an SIR in Bihar. It was challenged in the SC, which in September 2025 directed that Aadhaar be accepted as an additional (12th) identity document. †
• The SIR was later extended to other States and UTs. Delhi's SIR enumeration phase produced the 47.56 lakh ASDD exclusions. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Form 6 is built for first-time inclusion. Using it for restoration forces a declaration that is false on its face, which raises self-incrimination and Sec. 31 exposure concerns. [1]
• The challenge to an extra declaration form "without the force of law" turns on the limits of executive instructions compared with statutory Rules. [1]
• The case implicates Art. 326 and the due-process standard set in Lal Babu Hussein. †

Administrative

• Delhi has no dedicated restoration form or procedure for ASDD deletions, which is a design gap in the revision process. [1]
• About 47.5 lakh exclusions in one UT makes the claims-and-objections stage a heavy verification workload. [1]

Social

• An "Absent" or "Shifted" tag is most likely to hit migrant workers, tenants and the urban poor, which can leave them disenfranchised. (This is my analysis.)
• Requiring a fresh application shifts the burden of proof onto the citizen rather than the state. [1]

Ethical / Governance

• The accuracy of the roll (removing dead and duplicate entries) has to be balanced against inclusiveness (not removing genuine voters).
• Transparency in how ASDD tags are assigned and how deleted voters are notified affects trust in the EC.

Federal / Political

• Large-scale deletions before elections draw political contestation, and judicial oversight acts as a check on a constitutional body. (This is my analysis.)

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 2025: Bihar SIR and SC litigation, including the Aadhaar-as-document direction. †
• 2025–26: SIR rolled out to more States and UTs, including Delhi. †
• Delhi SIR enumeration phase: 47,56,722 electors excluded under ASDD. [1]
• October 2026: an application in the SC seeks a separate restoration mechanism, and the SC says it will "take care of" deleted voters. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• ASDD stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate. [1]
• Delhi SIR draft roll exclusions: 47,56,722. [1]
• Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, not under RPA 1951. [1]
• The Form 6 applicant affirms first-time inclusion in the electoral roll. [1]
• Section 31, RPA 1950 penalises false declarations with up to 1 year imprisonment, or fine, or both. [1]
• Electoral rolls fall under RPA 1950. Conduct of elections falls under RPA 1951. †
• Article 324 vests superintendence of electoral rolls in the ECI. †
• Article 326: adult suffrage, minimum age 18. †
• Form 7 is for objection or deletion. Form 8 is for correction or shifting. †
• Lal Babu Hussein (1995): due process is required before removal from the roll. †

8. Why Form 6 Is the Wrong Door Back for Deleted Voters

• The form asks deleted voters to say something false
• Form 6 is for people joining the roll for the first time. The applicant must declare they are applying "for the first time" [1].
• A Delhi voter left out under ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate) was already on the roll. For them, the declaration is untrue on its face [1].

• So the only way back makes them sign a false statement. A false declaration is punishable under Section 31, RPA 1950 [1].

• The risk falls on the voter, not on the officer who made the mistake

• The ASDD tag is given by the election machinery, during door-to-door enumeration.
• If the tag is wrong, the voter still has to apply again, find documents and take the legal risk.

• In the Bihar hearings, the SC itself said the EC cannot place the burden of proving citizenship on voters [7].

• The draft-stage route skips the normal safeguards for removal

• In Bihar, the EC told the SC that no name would be deleted without notice, a hearing and a reasoned order (a written decision that gives reasons) [6].
• Delhi's 47,56,722 people were left out when the draft roll was prepared, and their way back is Form 6 [1].

• So a voter who is wrongly tagged starts as an applicant. They are not treated as an existing voter who has a right to be heard before removal. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) was meant to stop exactly this.

• Why this matters for the exam: a remedy you can only use by signing a false statement does not really protect the right. Use this line in a GS-II answer on electoral due process.

9. The Extra Declaration: Can the EC Change a Form Without Changing the Rules?

• What the new declaration asks
• The revised Form 6 asks whether the applicant, or a parent or grandparent, was on the roll at the previous intensive revision [2].

• This links today's right to vote to a family's past enrolment. That moves the process towards checking ancestry, not just residence and age.

• Even inside the ECI, people disagreed

• Two Election Commissioners reportedly objected. They said the declaration could not be added without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2].

• The ECI's own position is that the declaration applies only to the SIR, and that the SC has upheld it [2].

• The SC has not approved it

• On 5 October 2026 the SC said it had not approved any changes to Form 6 [4].
• On 12 October 2026 it said it had "neither endorsed nor rejected" the revised form. The reason was that no application about it had come before the court [3].

• The Delhi application is that missing challenge [1]. So the SC must now decide the question on its merits for the first time.

• The legal principle at stake: delegated legislation

• Form 6 is part of the Rules, which are delegated legislation (law made by the executive under powers given by an Act of Parliament) [1].
• An administrative instruction cannot add a new duty on citizens that the Rules do not contain. The petitioners say the extra form has "no force of law" [1].
• Article 324 gives the ECI wide powers. But the open question is whether those powers can fill gaps or can override the Rules. That is the core of the Form 6 hearing [2].

10. The Strongest Case for the EC — and Where It Falls Short

• The EC's best argument: a clean roll protects every voter
• Names of dead people and duplicate entries let others vote in someone else's name (impersonation). Removing them protects real voters.
• In May 2026 the SC backed roll revision and said it is linked to free and fair elections [9].

• A first-time-style declaration also stops people from re-entering the roll with no checks at all.

• What is right about this

• Removing "Dead" and "Duplicate" entries is necessary. Nobody seriously argues against it.

• After SIR exclusions, data shows the electorate is back at about its 2015 size [8]. Some of that fall is likely genuine clean-up of old entries.

• Where it falls short: four very different cases are put in one bucket

• "Dead" and "Duplicate" can be checked against records such as death registers and software that finds duplicate entries.
• "Absent" and "Shifted" depend on whether a field officer found the person at home. These are the categories where genuine voters get caught.

• Yet all four tags lead to the same single remedy, a first-time Form 6 [1].

• The answer to the counter-case

• The same 2015-level figure [8] can also mean that many real voters are missing. Without a separate count for each tag, we cannot tell which one it is.
• Accuracy of the roll does not require a remedy built on a false statement. It requires checking each tag in a way that fits that tag.

11. What Bihar Already Taught — and Delhi Has Not Applied

• Bihar showed that deleted names must be public, with reasons
• About 65 lakh names were left off Bihar's draft roll [12].
• On 14 August 2025 the SC ordered the EC to publish the excluded names online, with the reason for each exclusion and searchable by EPIC (voter ID) number [5].
• It also ordered printed lists for each booth, to be displayed at panchayat and block offices [5].

• The idea: a voter cannot challenge a deletion they do not know about.

• Bihar also made the claim easier to file

• The SC let excluded voters file claims using Aadhaar [10].

• The court called the Bihar dispute "largely a trust deficit issue" [7]. In other words, the process has to be visible to win people's trust, not just be legally correct.

• West Bengal shows how large the problem can become

• Its SIR removed about 90 lakh voters, and more than 22 lakh have reportedly appealed for restoration [11].
• The SC is considering hearing appeals to restore names before appeals that object to other people's names [11].

• Delhi has 47.56 lakh exclusions [1]. With that many people, a slow or risky restoration route can keep lakhs of voters out of the next election.

• The gap in Delhi

• Bihar's directions were about making exclusions visible and making claims easier.
• Delhi's dispute is the next step: the form used for the claim itself exposes the voter to legal risk [1].

12. A Separate Way Back: Who Should Do What

• ECI: create a restoration route, separate from first-time enrolment
• A person left out under ASDD should be able to file a simple claim using their old EPIC number. They should not have to file a fresh Form 6 [1].

• The Bihar orders on publishing names with reasons and EPIC search [5] already provide the base. Each published name can be linked to a one-step restoration claim.

• Union Law Ministry with the ECI: amend the Rules if a new declaration is truly needed

• Two Election Commissioners themselves said the new declaration needs a change to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2].

• Making the change through a formal amendment to the Rules gives it legal backing. It also lets the declaration be tested in court and debated in public.

• ECI: say clearly that good-faith applicants will not be prosecuted

• Until a new route exists, the ECI should state that a voter who has been left out and signs Form 6 will not face action under Section 31, RPA 1950 [1].

• ECI: handle each ASDD tag differently

• Publish separate counts for Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate.

• Before excluding anyone tagged Absent or Shifted, require notice, a hearing and a reasoned order. The EC promised this standard in Bihar [6].

• Supreme Court: deal with restoration first

• In Bengal the SC is already considering hearing restoration appeals first [11]. The same order of priority suits Delhi, where 47.56 lakh people are affected [1].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 47,56,722 Delhi electors left off the draft roll under ASDD [1]; about 65 lakh left off Bihar's draft roll [12]; about 90 lakh deleted in West Bengal, with 22 lakh+ restoration appeals [11]
• Law/Case: Section 31, RPA 1950 (false declaration) [1]; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (Form 6) [1]; Lal Babu Hussein (1995), due process before removal from the roll; SC order of 14 August 2025 in the Bihar SIR case (excluded names to be published with reasons, searchable by EPIC) [5]
• Comparison: Bihar (deleted names published with reasons, Aadhaar accepted for claims) [5][10] vs Delhi (only route is a first-time Form 6) [1]
• Report/Committee: Two Election Commissioners objected that the new Form 6 declaration needs an amendment to the Rules [2]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the RPA; constitutional bodies (ECI); separation of powers and judicial review; issues in electoral reforms.
• GS-IV (peripheral): transparency and accountability in public institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Accuracy and inclusiveness of electoral rolls are equally vital to free and fair elections." Discuss in the context of recent Special Intensive Revisions. 2. Examine the procedural safeguards available to electors deleted from electoral rolls. Are they adequate to protect the right to vote? 3. Critically analyse the role of the Supreme Court in overseeing the Election Commission's administrative powers over voter registration.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Bihar SIR case (2025): the precedent litigation on SIR documents and deletions.
• RPA 1950 vs RPA 1951: frequently confused statutes.
• Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021: Aadhaar–voter ID linkage and four qualifying dates.
• Right to vote: statutory or constitutional? Kuldip Nayar (2006) and Anoop Baranwal (2023).
• Citizenship verification and NRC debates: overlap with document-based roll revisions.
• Remote voting and migrant enfranchisement: the "Shifted" category affects migrants.
• Delimitation: roll accuracy feeds seat allocation (and it is currently in the news).

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): The deletions of 47 lakh electors arose from Delhi's SIR, the exercise the whole case is about.
• Electoral roll (Polity): The dispute is over how deleted names get back on the roll and who bears the burden.
• Representation of the People Act 1950 (Polity): Rolls, Form 6 and the Section 31 false-declaration penalty all sit under this Act.
• Delegated legislation (Polity): Form 6 comes from rules, and the extra declaration is challenged as lacking legal force.
• Right to vote (Polity): Wrongful deletion threatens the right to vote, whose statutory or constitutional status is exam-relevant.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): The ECI runs roll revision and is the body the Supreme Court is asked to direct.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RPA 1950 vs 1951: rolls and Sec. 31 penalties are under 1950, not 1951. [1]
• Form 6 rules: they come from the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, not the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. [1]
• ASDD is not a statute or scheme. It is an administrative deletion category. [1]
• Summary vs Special Intensive Revision: an SIR is a fresh door-to-door enumeration, not a routine annual update. †
• The SC has not struck down the SIR here. It is examining a restoration mechanism. Don't overstate the outcome. [1]