Misplaced fear: Delhi High Court after voter excluded during SIR said filling Form 6 for re-inclusion was false declaration

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the apprehension of an elector that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration by submitting Form 6 to restore his name to the electoral roll is misplaced. 

A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that the suggestion to fill Form 6 had come from the standing counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), that too as per the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). 

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too as per the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, petitioner no.1’s apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced,” the Court observed. 

The High Court made the observation while closing a petition filed by Nilotpal Datta and another petitioner. Their names were deleted from the electoral roll after they could not complete the enumeration process during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi following a change of residence.

Before the High Court, they challenged the ECI direction requiring existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6 instead of correcting or shifting their existing electoral entries through Form 8.

They sought restoration of their names in the electoral roll and permission to have their entries transposed to the relevant constituency corresponding to their present place of ordinary residence.

Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha appeared for the ECI and submitted that the petitioners’ grievance could be addressed if they furnished Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 

He also told the court that the ERO had offered assistance in filling out the form during the previous hearing.

However, petitioner Nilotpal Datta appeared in person and opposed the suggestion. He stated that furnishing Form 6 would amount to making a false declaration.

The High Court disagreed with the apprehension. It observed that since the suggestion to submit the form had come from the ECI’s standing counsel on the instructions of the ERO the petitioner’s fear of being accused of making a false declaration was misplaced.

Petitioner appeared in person.

ECI was represented by standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha as well as advocates Siddhartha Goswami, Ashish Shukla and Aditya Sachedeva.

Advocate Farman Ali represented the Union of India.