Delhi High Court Upholds ECI Process, Directs Voter to Fill Form 6
The Delhi High Court has upheld the ECIs process, directing a voter to complete Form 6 for registration after their name was removed.
New Delhi, October 18 (Daily Kiran) : The Delhi High Court has affirmed the existing procedures of the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding voter registration. In a recent ruling, the court instructed a voter in the national capital to fill out Form 6, which is necessary for registering new voters.
The case arose when the voter’s name was removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Revision (SIR) process due to a change of residence. The individual appealed to the court, requesting permission to fill out Form 8 to update their address, a plea that was denied.
Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Chaudhary dismissed the petition filed by Nilotpal Dutta and others, who sought changes in the ECI’s process for existing voters whose names were not included in the electoral list during the SIR.
The petitioners argued that they were unable to submit their forms on time because they had moved from their previous addresses, leading to their names being omitted from the electoral rolls.
Dutta and the other petitioners requested that the ECI transfer their existing voter records to their new addresses using Form 8, rather than requiring them to re-register with Form 6. The court, however, did not accept their argument.
The justices noted that the ECI had assured that if Dutta used Form 6 to register, he would not face any allegations of false declaration.
Form 6 is designated for new voter registration, while Form 8 is used for updating addresses or correcting information on the electoral rolls.
Sanjay Vashisht, representing the ECI, stated that if the petitioners genuinely sought a resolution, they should fill out Form 6 as per the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He mentioned that he had previously advised Dutta to complete the form and assured him that the Electoral Registration Officer would assist in the process, but the petitioners chose not to follow through.
The court remarked, “After hearing both parties, we believe that the suggestion from the ECI’s lawyer, in accordance with the Electoral Registration Officer’s guidelines, renders the first petitioner’s concern about potential false declaration unfounded.”
In its ruling on October 14, the court concluded, “With these comments, the writ proceedings are terminated. If the petitioners wish, they may fill out Form 6, which will be processed in accordance with the law.”
The petitioners had urged the court to direct the ECI to revise the process for existing voters who were not listed during the SIR, in line with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960.
