SIR: Bulk Form 7s in UP not filed as per rules, not acted upon, EC tells SC

Why in the News

The Election Commission of India (ECI) says bulk Form 7 deletion applications filed in Uttar Pradesh never led to a deletion, but petitioners say bulk filings against one community went on in other States.

1. The ECI told a three judge Supreme Court Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India that none of the bulk forms was acted upon, and the Bench asked it to file a compliance report on the petitioners’ remaining concerns.
2. On a plea against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Keralam, the Court declined to extend the deadline, saying anyone wrongly left out can still be included.

What is Form 7, and how can it remove a name?

1. What it is: Form 7 objects to a proposed name on the electoral roll or asks for a name’s deletion. It works like a complaint, because filing it starts an inquiry and removes no one by itself.
2. The safeguard: Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) must hold a hearing and pass a reasoned order on each form. The ECI says no name goes without notice.
3. The allegation: Petitions allege bulk Form 7s with false details, forged signatures and names of people who denied filing them. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) allegedly received prefilled forms seeking many deletions.
4. The relief sought: One petitioner, a Congress MP, wants penal action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against anyone who made false declarations or fake objections.
5. The takeaway: A Form 7 can strip a vote only if the hearing safeguard fails, so the case turns on whether EROs held hearings.

What did the ECI tell the Court?

1. No form acted upon: The ECI said none of the Form 7s in the plea followed the procedure the law and SIR guidelines prescribe, so no deletion resulted. It called the charge of systemic misuse “baseless and erroneous”.
2. Checked in the field: Its counsel said officers checked and cross checked the bulk forms, found them false and did not act on them.
3. Deletions that did occur: Uttar Pradesh recorded 4,65,520 deletions through Form 7, and electors filed 252 appeals against ERO orders.

What do the petitioners say, and what did the Court direct?

1. One constituency: In the Hata constituency in Uttar Pradesh, 32 Form 7s were filed, two signed by BLOs, and all sought deletion of voters of one community.
2. Spread to other States: Counsel said the lack of corrective steps in the Uttar Pradesh SIR emboldened bulk filings in Karnataka and Telangana.
3. Test of the ECI’s claim: Counsel asked the Court to subject the claim that false forms were stopped before any deletion to judicial scrutiny.
4. The direction: The Bench told petitioners to give their remaining concerns to the ECI. The ECI is to examine them, take corrective steps and file a compliance report.
5. Stakes: The Uttar Pradesh SIR ended in April after over two crore voters were removed. Assembly election processes may begin as early as December 2026.

What did the Court decide on Keralam’s SIR?

1. No extension: The Court found a formal extension unnecessary, since correcting the rolls and including voters is a “continuing process”.
2. The plea: A lawyer for the State secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said many people could not complete enumeration forms, which collect each voter’s details, for want of time. He cited over 24 lakh names excluded.
3. The ECI’s stand: The ECI said the exercise was over and elections had been held on the revised rolls. It agreed to examine representations on left out voters and report to the Court.
4. Route left open: The Court told petitioners to find left out persons and bring them to the ECI’s notice by representation.

Challenges

1. Bulk filing: Any elector can file a Form 7 against another, but each needs a hearing, so bulk filings can swamp EROs.
2. Self policing: The ECI examines its own conduct, with no outside check on how forms were handled.
3. Overloaded BLOs: Tight targets and deadlines push Booth Level Officers into hasty markings.
4. Slow remedies: Claims often stay unresolved when rolls freeze before polls. Eg. Only a fraction of 6 million claims in West Bengal were resolved.

Way Forward

1. Public form register: Publish each Form 7 received with its notice, hearing and order, so anyone can check what happened.
2. Prosecute false filers: Use Section 31 of the 1950 Act against proven fake filers.
3. Independent audit: Let civil society groups run sample audits of deletions after each revision.
4. Dated compliance report: Fix the date by which the ECI files its compliance report and let petitioners reply.

Conclusion

The Court has left the ECI to examine its own conduct, so the report that follows matters more than the hearing itself. Watch whether it names who filed the bulk forms and what became of each.

Back2Basics: Representation of the People Act, 1950

1. Coverage: It provides for the allocation of seats in Parliament and State legislatures, delimitation of constituencies, voter qualifications and the preparation of electoral rolls.
2. Companion Act: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 governs the conduct of elections, corrupt practices and election disputes.
3. Special revision: Section 21 lets the ECI revise a roll specially at any time for recorded reasons.
4. Source of power: Article 327 lets Parliament make laws on elections, including rolls and delimitation.

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?”