Fear of False Declaration over Form 6 is 'Misplaced': Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court dismisses a plea against electoral roll deletions, ruling that fears of false declarations when filing Form 6 are misplaced.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the deletion of names from the electoral roll, ruling that a voter's fear of being accused of making a false declaration while filing Form 6 for fresh inclusion is entirely misplaced. The court's decision came after the Election Commission of India (ECI) provided assurances regarding the process.
The Core of the Dispute
The legal battle began when Nilotpal Datta and another petitioner found their names missing from the electoral roll following a Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The petitioners explained to the court that they had shifted from their previous residential addresses, which prevented them from filling out the enumeration forms during the SIR exercise. As a result, their names were deleted.
The petitioners challenged the ECI's procedure, arguing that they should be allowed the restoration and shifting of their existing entries rather than being forced to seek fresh inclusion. They contended that the current procedure violated the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and their fundamental constitutional rights.
The ECI's Solution and the Petitioner's Fear
During the proceedings, Sanjay Vashishtha, the standing counsel for the ECI, suggested that the petitioners could resolve their grievances by submitting Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He noted that this suggestion had been made previously and that the Electoral Registration Officer had even offered assistance to the first petitioner to facilitate the process.
However, the first petitioner, appearing in person, strongly opposed this. He argued that by filling out Form 6—which is used for new registrations—he would essentially be making a false declaration, as he was already a registered voter whose name had simply been deleted.
The Court's Verdict
A bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary heard the arguments and concluded that the petitioner's apprehension was unfounded. Given the assurances provided by the ECI through its counsel, the court termed the fear of "false declaration" as misplaced.
The court highlighted that the suggestion to use Form 6 came directly from the ECI’s standing counsel based on instructions from the Electoral Registration Officer. Consequently, the bench closed the writ proceedings, stating that the petitioners are free to submit Form 6 if they wish, and such applications will be processed in accordance with the law.
What the Petitioners Wanted
Beyond challenging the procedure, the petitioners had requested the court to:
- Direct the restoration of their electoral entries under Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Allow them to use Form 8 to seek corrections and transpose their entries to their current place of residence.
- Ensure that these restored and transposed entries appeared in the final published electoral roll as per Rule 22.
Ultimately, the High Court declined to issue these specific directions and disposed of all pending applications, leaving the petitioners to follow the standard ECI process via Form 6.