The Supreme Court has told the Election Commission of India (ECI) to look into complaints that Form 7, the application used to remove a name from the voter list, was filed in bulk to target voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Friday asked the poll body to verify the allegations, make corrections where needed and file a compliance report, while keeping the petitions pending.
What happened in court
The bench was hearing petitions, including one filed by Congress MP Tanuj Punia, that challenge aspects of the SIR in Uttar Pradesh, where Assembly elections are due in 2027. The petitioners argued that the specific issue of bulk Form 7 applications had not been addressed. Counsel for one petitioner alleged that 32 Form 7 applications had been submitted in a single constituency to target members of a particular community.
Appearing for the Election Commission, Senior Advocate DS Naidu told the court that the Commission had filed an affidavit and that its officers had checked the complaints. He said the poll body had received bulk applications but found them to be false, and had not acted on them.
The court then asked the petitioners to put their remaining concerns in a written note to the ECI, so the Commission could examine them and report back on what it has done.
| Case | Tanuj Punia and others v. Election Commission of India |
| Bench | CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V Mohana |
| Issue | Alleged bulk Form 7 filings to delete voters in UP's SIR |
| ECI's stand | Bulk applications received, found false, not acted upon |
| Court's direction | ECI to verify, correct and file compliance report |
| Status | Matter kept pending |
What is Form 7 and why does it matter?
Form 7 is the application any voter can file to object to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, or to seek its deletion, for example when a person has died or shifted. It is a routine tool for keeping voter lists clean. The concern raised in court is that if such forms are filed in large numbers without proper checks, genuine voters could be struck off without their knowledge, especially during an intensive revision when the rolls are being rebuilt.
Under election rules, a name cannot simply be deleted because a Form 7 has been filed. The electoral registration officer is supposed to issue notice and verify the claim before acting. The petitioners' argument is that this safeguard must be applied strictly in Uttar Pradesh, the country's most populous state.
The larger SIR debate
The Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls has been politically contentious since it began in Bihar. In May this year, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Opposition parties, however, have continued to question how deletions are being handled in other states, and earlier hearings on Uttar Pradesh saw claims that lakhs of names had been dropped from the draft rolls.
The issue has also fed into the wider standoff between the INDIA bloc and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with opposition parties staging protests against the Commission in Delhi this week.
What it means for voters in Uttar Pradesh
For voters, the order is a reminder to check whether their names appear on the electoral roll. If you believe your name has been wrongly objected to or removed, you can follow these steps:
- Check your name on the draft or final roll through the Election Commission's voter services portal or your Booth Level Officer.
- If your name is missing, file Form 6 to be included again, along with the required documents.
- If you receive a notice on a Form 7 objection, respond before the hearing date given in the notice.
What happens next
The petitioners will now submit their note on unresolved complaints to the Election Commission, which will have to examine them and file a compliance report before the court. The Supreme Court has not closed the case, which means it can take up the issue again if the petitioners are not satisfied with the Commission's response.
Comments (0)