The Court said the suggestion to fill up Form 6 for getting themselves included in the electoral roll came from none else than the Election Commission of India (ECI) itself.

The Delhi High Court recently said that the apprehension of an elector that he would be accused of making a false declaration by filling up Form-6 for restoring his name in the electoral roll is misplaced.

A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary said that the suggestion to fill up Form 6 came from the standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too at the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

“having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too at the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, petitioner no.1’s apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced”, the Court added.

The Court made the above observation while disposing of a petition filed by Nilotpal Datta and another seeking directions to restore the deletion of their names from the electoral roll.

The petitioners’ names were deleted from the electoral roll when they could not complete the process of enumeration after changing their residence and during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi.

They had approached the High Court challenging the direction issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) that instructed existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR process to apply for fresh inclusion in electoral rolls via Form 6 instead of opting to correct or shift their existing entries via Form 8.

The petitioners prayed that their names be restored in the electoral roll. They also sought permission to transpose their existing entries to the relevant constituency which has their present place of ordinary residence.

Standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha appeared for ECI and submitted that the grievance of petitioners can be addressed if they file Form 6 under Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

He added that the ERO had already told the petitioners that they would assist them in filling up the form during the last hearing.

However, petitioner Nilotpal Datta chose to appear in person and opposed the suggestion. He claimed that by furnishing Form 6 he would be essentially making a false declaration.

The Delhi High Court disagreed with the petitioner. It said that since the suggestion to furnish the form was coming from ECI’s own standing counsel and at the instruction of the ERO, the petitioner’s apprehension of being prosecuted for furnishing a false declaration was misplaced.