UPSC Darpan

Polity & GovernanceGS22 October 2026

EC orders probe into bulk Form 7 deletions, special drive for left-out voters

Open in the app — quiz, notes, Mistake Vault हिंदी में पढ़ें

The news

Bengaluru and New Delhi, October 1. The Election Commission (EC) ordered a probe into Form 7s, the forms that object to a name on the roll, filed in bulk in Karnataka, after a five-hour protest by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbu Kumar told Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to act under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against those who “knowingly” make false declarations, but only after an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, The Hindu reports. The Indian Express reports that an EC letter of September 29 orders a “special drive” in the 20 States and UTs where SIR is over to enrol “left out” and first-time electors on the plain Form 6; CEOs must compare pre- and post-SIR rolls and send booth officers to the homes of those wrongly deleted.

The chain in one line: SIR strikes 13 crore names off draft rolls in 30 States and UTs → the Rules let any elector object to any entry → pre-filled Form 7s are filed in bulk against particular communities → a Chief Minister’s protest forces a probe → the EC opens a Form 6 route back

Static syllabus linkage

  1. The 1960 Rules require notice and inquiry before any deletion. Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 6 claims inclusion, Form 7 objects to an entry and Form 8 corrects one. The person objected to gets notice of a hearing (Rule 19), and the ERO holds a summary inquiry (Rule 20), where he may take evidence on oath.
  2. Section 31 punishes false declarations; Article 324 makes rolls the EC’s duty. Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950 punishes a written statement about an electoral roll that the maker knows or believes to be false with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. Article 324 vests control of the preparation of rolls in the EC.

Why UPSC loves this

  1. Roll revision is now the live edge of the GS2 elections syllabus. The syllabus names the “Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act”. Questions on electoral reform increasingly turn on who may be struck off a roll and by what procedure.

Prelims nuggets

  • Form 7 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is used to object to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll or to seek its deletion.
  • Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 punishes a knowingly false declaration relating to an electoral roll with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
  • Article 324 vests the preparation of electoral rolls in the Election Commission.

Analysis

  1. The system makes deletion cheap and re-inclusion costly. Filing a Form 7 costs a signature; answering it costs the voter documents and perhaps a hearing. In West Bengal, per the EC affidavit cited by petitioner Prasenjit Bose, about 90% of 6,39,000 Form 7s were accepted while over a fifth of Form 6s were rejected. When one side is effortless and the other demanding, outcomes tilt even if officers act in good faith.
  2. Lens — Independence and accountability: the EC cannot outsource deterrence. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa says Section 31 has hardly been used and the EC rarely follows up its FIRs, so false objections are effectively free. The counter-view is that flagging a suspect entry is a citizen’s right. A sound officer would inquire first, prosecute only proven, knowing falsehoods, and publish the numbers, through the separate NCRB dataset on election offences Lavasa proposes.
  3. The special drive admits error but rebuilds rolls on weak footing. Comparing pre- and post-SIR rolls concedes that eligible people were removed. Yet they re-enter through Form 6 as if new, and party agents are asked to help, bringing partisanship back in. Its test is names restored, booth by booth, and published.

Possible Mains question

“Making deletion easy and re-inclusion hard threatens adult franchise.” Critically examine with reference to recent objections filed during revision of electoral rolls. (15 marks, 250 words)

Model approach

  1. Directive — Critically examine. Weigh both sides and reach a judgement.
  2. Introduction — the franchise lives or dies by roll procedure. Article 326 promises adult suffrage; the 1960 Rules decide who is on the roll.
  3. Body — objections cost little and the burden falls on the voter. Value addition: West Bengal’s ~90% Form 7 acceptance; Karnataka’s bulk filings.
  4. Body — safeguards exist but go unenforced. Rule 20 and Section 31; counter: genuine objections clean rolls. Flowchart: Form 7 → display → notice → Rule 20 inquiry → order → appeal.
  5. Conclusion — make deletion as accountable as inclusion. Booth-level disclosure and inquiry for bulk filers; the special drive is a start.

Administrator's brainstorm

You are an ERO. Hours before the window closes, 1,000 Form 7s arrive from ten people against voters of one community. What do you do?

I would delete no name on the forms alone. Each voter would get notice, and I would hold a Rule 20 inquiry, asking objectors to testify on oath that they know the facts. Those who cannot substantiate, or deny filing, would be referred for Section 31 action. I would report the pattern in writing to the DEO and CEO, since bulk filing signals organised misuse.