The Election Commission (EC) of India has informed the Supreme Court that bulk Form 7 applications filed in Uttar Pradesh were not acted upon by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and their assistants. The response came as part of a counter-affidavit filed on September 16, addressing allegations of systematic voter deletions within the state during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Form 7 is a designated legal instrument used to lodge objections against the proposed inclusion of a name in the electoral roll or to request the deletion of an existing name on specific grounds. According to the Registration of Electors Rules (RER), 1960, EROs are legally mandated to conduct thorough hearings and issue reasoned, speaking orders before any name can be removed from the official register.
In its submission before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Election Commission stated that the applications mentioned in the petitions were not submitted in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the associated 1960 rules. Consequently, the Commission asserted that no deletions resulted from these bulk filings, dismissing the allegations of systemic misuse as "baseless and erroneous."
Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the EC, clarified to the bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, that the Commission had investigated the matter. "We found that bulk Form 7s had been given. Our officers went, checked and cross-checked. They were false and we have not acted," Naidu submitted. The Commission noted that during the UP SIR, which concluded on April 10 with the publication of the final electoral roll, there were a total of 465,520 deletions via Form 7, with 252 appeals filed by electors against ERO decisions.
Counsel for the petitioners, however, contested the EC’s findings. They highlighted instances in specific constituencies where numerous Form 7s were submitted against members of a particular community, claiming that some were signed by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). Petitioners argued that the lack of remedial measures during the Uttar Pradesh exercise might have led to similar issues appearing in other states, including Karnataka and Telangana.
In response, the Supreme Court directed the petitioners to submit details of their remaining concerns to the Election Commission. The bench mandated that the Commission must examine these factual aspects, implement necessary corrective actions, and file a compliance report with the court. The proceedings underscore the judiciary’s ongoing oversight regarding the integrity of electoral rolls across the country.
Separately, regarding a plea challenging the SIR process in Kerala, the Supreme Court noted that the exercise was already complete and elections had been conducted using the revised rolls. While the court declined to extend the timeline for the revision, it instructed the EC to sympathetically consider the cases of individuals who were unable to submit enumeration forms due to time constraints, provided the petitioner furnishes the specific details of those affected. The EC has also been granted four weeks to respond to a petition alleging large-scale voter deletions in Chhattisgarh.
Comments