The Supreme Court has sought a simpler process for restoring eligible voters’ names to Delhi’s electoral rolls after the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise left millions of names out of the draft list.
During a hearing on October 28, 2026, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, questioned why people who had already been registered as voters were being asked to submit Form 6 to regain their place on the electoral roll.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
Issue/Event: Supreme Court questions the requirement for previously registered Delhi voters to use Form 6 to seek restoration of their names.
Location: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi; the case concerns Delhi’s electoral roll revision.
Authority/Organisation: Supreme Court of India and Election Commission of India.
Action Taken: The Court urged a simpler process for affected voters and asked the Commission to continue considering relevant forms without relying on a rigid cut-off.
Impact: The proceedings could make it easier for eligible voters to seek inclusion, but individual registration and the legality of “logical discrepancy” checks remain subject to the applicable process and further proceedings.
Form 6 is ordinarily used for the enrolment of new voters. The Court questioned whether previously registered electors should be treated as first-time applicants simply because their names did not appear in the draft roll.
The proceedings concerned Delhi’s SIR exercise, under which enumeration forms were distributed and a draft electoral roll was published on August 31, 2026. Election Commission figures cited during the hearing indicated that approximately 14.51 million electors were on the rolls at the start of the exercise, while around 9.75 million submitted their enumeration forms. Millions of names were not carried forward into the draft list, with the reasons including voters recorded as absent, shifted, deceased or duplicated.
The Court asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider a practical mechanism for people who could not submit enumeration forms during the initial exercise. It also discussed whether existing voters who had changed addresses should be allowed to use Form 8, which is used for changes of residence and corrections to voter particulars, where applicable.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
Electoral rolls are a basic part of the voting process. An eligible citizen whose name is missing from the final list may face difficulty exercising their voting rights unless the issue is resolved through the applicable procedure. The Supreme Court’s questions focus on the distinction between a first-time voter and a person who was previously registered but was omitted during a revision exercise. A clear procedure could reduce confusion for affected residents and help election officials handle applications consistently. The case also highlights the need for transparency in the use of data-based checks and the reasons for flagging voter records. The Court has not yet delivered a final ruling on the legality of the “logical discrepancy” criterion.
The bench urged the Commission to continue receiving relevant forms and verifying the information submitted, rather than relying on a rigid cut-off date while the issue remained under consideration. The ECI indicated that it would discuss the suggestions and take steps regarding the timeline and process for affected electors.
The hearing also examined the use of “logical discrepancy” as a category for flagging voter records. The Court clarified that its earlier decision concerning the Bihar SIR had not amounted to a final determination of the legality of that criterion.
The matter is expected to return before the Court after the Commission considers the proposed measures. The proceedings do not amount to a final judgment on every aspect of the SIR exercise, and the final status of an individual voter’s registration must be checked through the relevant election authorities.
