Published Nov 03, 2026 | 10:46 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 03, 2026 | 10:46 PM
The ECI's clarification regarding Form-6 submission aligns with the Delhi High Court's 14 October ruling.
Synopsis: The ECI clarified in a statement that existing voters whose names are missing from the draft electoral rolls can submit Form-6 for re-enrolment, and no action will be taken against them. The Commission issued the clarification after noting that several voters feared legal action under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, if they submitted Form-6.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has reiterated that existing voters, whose names do not appear in the draft electoral roll under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), can submit Form-6 for fresh inclusion.
The ECI issued the clarification on Tuesday, 3 November, after noticing that several existing voters were hesitant to use Form-6 for fresh inclusion. The hesitation stemmed from a declaration in Form-6 stating that it was for first-time inclusion.
Voters were also apprehensive about facing action for making a false declaration under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ECI noted.
Section 31 of the Act pertains to the offence of making a false written statement, or declaration, in connection with the preparation, revision, or correction of an electoral roll, or the inclusion or exclusion of any entry. Such an offence warrants imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.
The ECI said existing voters whose names were missing from the draft rolls could submit Form-6. The central poll panel said such a submission will not be treated as a false declaration, and no punitive action would be initiated.
The Commission also directed that no action under Section 31 should be initiated against voters who are not enrolled in any other constituency and submit Form-6 to include their names in the electoral rolls.
The poll panel clarified this in line with the High Court of Delhi’s 14 October 2026 ruling in Nilotpal Datta & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., which held that fears of legal consequences in such cases were unfounded.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
