The Delhi High Court has justified the existing process of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court has directed a voter in the national capital to fill 'Form 6', which is used for registration of new voters.
In fact, the person's name was removed from the voter list during the SIR (Special Revision) process due to change of residence. He had appealed to the court to allow him to fill 'Form 8' for change of address, which was rejected by the court.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Chaudhary refused to accept the petition of Nilotpal Dutt and others. The petitioners had demanded that the ECI change the process for existing voters whose names were not included in the voter list during the SIR.
The petitioners said that when the forms for voter list were being filled, they could not fill their forms because they had left their old house. Because of this their names were removed from the voter list.
Dutt and other petitioners demanded that the ECI transfer their existing voter records to the new address through 'Form 8', instead of them having to do fresh registration by filling 'Form 6'. The court did not accept his argument.
Justice Mehta and Justice Chaudhary took on record the Election Commission's assurance that if Dutta used 'Form 6' to get his name added to the voter list, he would not be charged with making a false declaration.
The Election Commission's 'Form 6' is used to register as a new voter, while 'Form 8' is used to change the address or correct the information entered in the existing voter list.
Election Commission's lawyer Sanjay Vashishtha said that if the petitioners really want a solution to the problem, then they can fill and submit 'Form 6' under Rule 25(2) and Rule 13(1)(A) of the 'Registration of Electors Rules, 1960'. This will solve their problem.
He said that even on the previous date of hearing, he had requested Dutta to fill the form and had also assured that the Electoral Registration Officer would help in this, but the petitioners decided not to do so for reasons best known to them.
The court said, “After hearing the counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that when this suggestion is being made by the counsel for the ECI and that too in accordance with the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, the apprehension of petitioner No. 1 that he may be accused of making a false declaration is baseless.”
“With these observations, the writ proceedings are concluded. If the petitioners wish, they may fill Form 6, which will be processed as per law,” the court said in its judgment delivered on October 14.
The petitioner had urged the court to direct it to reschedule the process for existing voters who could not be enumerated during the SIR, in accordance with the 'Representation of the People Act, 1950' and the 'Electoral Registration Rules, 1960'.
Also read-
World Food Day: Why crores of people are not getting nutritious food, FAO told the solution!
Are you troubled by facial wrinkles? Do kapol power developing activities daily!