ECI gave no SOPs for auto-generated Form 7s

Why in the News

Electoral rules let only an elector on the same roll file Form 7, the objection form for deleting a voter, with narrow exceptions in death cases, yet tens of thousands of voters were deleted through Form 7s generated by software and signed by officials. State poll authorities in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal did this during phases 2 and 3 of the special intensive revision (SIR), without any written protocol from the Election Commission of India (ECI).

What is Form 7, and who may file it?

1. What it is: Form 7 is the ECI’s application to object to a proposed entry or to delete an existing name from the electoral roll, like a formal complaint against a voter’s entry.
2. Who may file: Under the Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2024, only a person whose name is already on the same roll can file it. In death cases, a family member, a local elector or the Booth Level Officer (BLO) may.
3. Party agents: Booth Level Agents (BLAs), the booth representatives of recognised parties, may file at most 10 forms a day. Beyond 30 in a revision period, the forms need cross verification.
4. The adjudicator: The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decides claims and objections, and cannot file a Form 7. The ERO can still delete a name found ineligible.
5. The takeaway: The rules keep the person who objects separate from the officer who decides, so no official is both accuser and judge.

What did State poll authorities do?

1. Software generated forms: When officials deleted voters at SIR hearings, the ECI’s roll management software ERONet automatically generated Form 7s, by State electoral officials’ account.
2. Officers as objectors: The forms carried the EROs’ digital signatures. In Delhi, EROs and Assistant EROs (AEROs) were named as ‘objectors’ against electors in the draft roll.
3. Grounds for deletion: Every such elector had been flagged in the draft roll published on August 31. The flag was a ‘logical discrepancy’ in their details or ‘no mapping’ to an older roll.
4. Scale: More than 87,000 names in Uttar Pradesh and more than 95,000 in Uttarakhand were reportedly deleted this way.
5. No written instruction: No written communication or standard operating procedure (SOP) was shared with State authorities, and the ECI had not answered an official query.

What does the manual actually allow?

1. No filing by officers: The manual has no provision for EROs or AEROs to file Form 7 themselves.
2. ERO’s duties: The ERO receives and screens each form. The ERO then lists Form 7 applications in Form 10 and displays them on the office noticeboard.
3. Check on bulk objectors: The ERO must personally cross verify deletions where the same person is the objector in more than five cases.
4. Only mention of auto-generation: The manual mentions auto-generating forms only under Photo Similar Entries (PSE) verification, a check for duplicate entries with similar photographs.
5. Recent cap: The ECI has also restricted how many Form 7s one individual can file, after an uproar over bulk filing in many States.

Challenges

1. Accuser and judge merged: When software files the objection under the ERO’s signature, the officer deciding a deletion also appears as its objector.
2. Flags treated as proof: Deleting voters for an unresolved discrepancy or a failed mapping shifts the burden onto voters to prove they belong.
3. Silence from the ECI: The ECI has not explained the practice, which deepens doubts over SIR deletions.

Way Forward

1. Written SOP: The ECI should publish a protocol stating whether, and when, ERONet may generate a Form 7.
2. Named objectors: Record the actual objector on every Form 7 and bar EROs from appearing as objectors.
3. Review of deletions: Re-examine deletions made through auto-generated forms in the four States and restore wrongly removed names.
4. Form 10 lists online: Publish Form 7 lists online, not only on office noticeboards.

Conclusion

Large numbers of SIR deletions rest on forms that the manual does not allow officials to file. Whether the ECI issues a protocol, or orders a review of deletions made this way, is what to watch.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”