Delhi High Court Closes Voter Roll Plea, Directs Form 6 Filing After SIR Deletion

In a ruling delivered on October 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court closed a writ petition filed by Nilotpal Datta and another petitioner, who challenged their deletion from the electoral roll after they could not participate in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The court directed them to file Form 6 if they wish to be re-enrolled, rather than seeking restoration through Form 8.

The case, Nilotpal Datta & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 14955/2026, was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary. The petitioners, one appearing in person, argued that they had shifted residences and thus could not fill enumeration forms during the SIR, leading to their names being deleted.

What the Delhi High Court Held on Form 6 vs. Form 8

The petitioners sought to quash Paragraph 4(c) of Annexure B to an Election Commission of India (ECI) order dated June 24, 2025, as applied to Delhi, claiming it violated the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. They wanted the court to direct the ECI to let them correct or transpose their existing entries using Form 8, instead of requiring fresh inclusion via Form 6.

Form 6 is used for new voter registration, while Form 8 is for corrections or shifting of residence within the same constituency. The petitioners argued that forcing them to file Form 6 would amount to a false declaration because they were already registered voters.

The ECI's standing counsel, Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, told the court that the grievance could be redressed if the petitioners filed Form 6. He noted that on the previous hearing date, he had requested the petitioner to do so and assured assistance from the Electoral Registration Officer. The petitioners had declined.

Justice Mehta and Justice Choudhary observed that the petitioners' fear of being accused of a false declaration was 'misplaced,' especially since the suggestion came from the ECI's counsel on instructions from the Electoral Registration Officer. The court closed the writ proceedings but allowed the petitioners to file Form 6, which shall be processed in accordance with law.

Why This Matters for Voters Deleted During SIR

The order highlights a procedural fork: voters removed during the SIR must use Form 6 for fresh inclusion, not Form 8 for correction. This distinction matters because Form 6 requires an oath that the applicant is not already registered, which the petitioners felt was untrue.

The court's refusal to interfere means the ECI's process stands. For thousands of voters in similar situations, the path back to the rolls is through Form 6. The judgment does not address whether the SIR itself was flawed, only that the remedy lies in following the prescribed procedure.

The petitioners had also sought restoration of their entries under Rule 21 and transposition under Rule 13(3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The court did not grant these prayers.

Legal Context: Form 6 and the Registration of Electors Rules

Under Rule 25(2) read with Rule 13(1)(a) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 6 is the prescribed application for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. The ECI's counsel relied on this provision to argue that the petitioners had a clear remedy.

The petitioners' challenge to Paragraph 4(c) of Annexure B to the ECI order dated June 24, 2025, was not adjudicated on merits. The court disposed of the writ petition without quashing the paragraph, effectively upholding the ECI's procedure for Delhi.

This case is part of a broader debate over the SIR process and its impact on voters. The Delhi High Court's decision signals that courts will not easily interfere with the ECI's prescribed forms, even if voters find them inconvenient. The ruling reinforces the ECI's authority to set the procedure for electoral roll revision, as long as it complies with the statutory framework.

For voters who missed the SIR because they moved, the message is clear: file Form 6. The court has called the fear of a false declaration 'misplaced,' but the petitioners' concern underscores a real anxiety about swearing to a statement that may not reflect their history. The ECI's assurance of assistance may not resolve that tension.

The judgment, delivered on October 14, 2026, is a short order that prioritizes procedural regularity over the petitioners' substantive arguments. It leaves open the question of whether the SIR's exclusion of voters like the petitioners is fair, but it closes the door on this particular challenge.

As election law evolves, this case will be cited for the proposition that Form 6 is the proper route for deleted voters, even if they were previously registered. The Delhi High Court's stance may influence similar petitions in other states where SIRs have been conducted.

The petitioners have the option to file Form 6. Whether they do so remains to be seen. The court has made its position clear: the remedy lies in the form, not in the writ court.