SIR Deletions and Form 6 Restoration: Electoral Inclusion and Due Process

What West Bengal has announced

The CEO’s notice makes the ASDD list available on the State election website and through District Electoral Officers’ websites. It says that eligible persons whose names were left out can submit Form 6 online or through a Booth Level Officer for inclusion in the electoral roll.

Form 6 is an application for inclusion, not an automatic restoration order. The competent electoral authority must examine eligibility and decide the application. Access to the form therefore creates a remedial opportunity but does not, by itself, establish that every deletion was wrongful or that every applicant will be included.

• ASDD is expanded in the notice as Absentee, Shifted, Dead, Deleted.
• The news report says an ECI special restoration drive had initially not included West Bengal.
• The report does not clarify how Form 6 applications will interact with pending tribunal appeals.

Reading the deletion figures correctly

The news report records over 58 lakh ASDD electors in West Bengal’s first draft published in December 2025. Separately, it reports over 27 lakh deletions following adjudication when the final roll was issued, and says the Supreme Court established 19 appellate tribunals headed by former Calcutta High Court judges to re-examine those cases.

The editorial reports nearly 13.4 crore removals from draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, amounting to about 14% of the pre-revision electorate. These are editorial-reported draft-stage figures, not an established count of eligible citizens finally disenfranchised.

• Draft omissions, final deletions, pending appeals and successful inclusions are distinct administrative outcomes.
• The West Bengal draft and post-adjudication figures should not be added together because their overlap is not established.
• Deletion volumes alone cannot distinguish valid removal of deceased or duplicate entries from wrongful exclusion.

Constitutional mandate and statutory remedies

Universal adult franchise and accurate rolls are complementary constitutional objectives. The ECI’s supervisory authority under Article 324 operates within the constitutional and statutory framework; administrative directions cannot override the governing law. Article 14 and principles of natural justice reinforce the need for non-arbitrary decisions.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 21 concerns preparation and revision of rolls, Section 22 addresses correction and deletion of entries, and Section 23 governs inclusion. Section 22 requires verification and a reasonable opportunity of being heard for specified adverse actions, including proposed deletion on grounds of non-residence or other ineligibility.

Section 24 provides statutory appeals against specified electoral-registration decisions. The Electoral Registration Officer is the primary decision-maker, not the appellate authority against their own order. The relationship between the reported court-created tribunals and the Form 6 route needs authoritative clarification rather than inference from political or editorial commentary.

• Form 6 seeks inclusion; Form 7 is used for objections to proposed inclusion or requests for deletion; Form 8 covers shifting of residence and specified changes to existing registration.
• Temporary absence alone does not necessarily end ordinary residence under electoral law.
• Statutory restrictions on roll changes between the nomination deadline and completion of the election make timely correction essential.

Why post-deletion remedies may be insufficient

A remedy dependent on citizens first discovering their omission can disadvantage migrants, elderly persons, persons with disabilities and those with limited digital access. Publication of a searchable list improves transparency, but it cannot substitute for individual notice where required or accessible local assistance.

The editorial alleges that fresh-application requirements, checks described as logical discrepancies and mass deletion requests have made re-entry difficult. It also alleges that Form 6 was altered without corresponding rule amendments. These claims raise questions requiring official records and legal scrutiny; they should not be presented as independently established findings of illegality.

The central governance test is whether a voter receives a clear reason, a meaningful opportunity to respond and an effective decision before the relevant electoral deadline. Restoration after an election cannot recover the opportunity to participate in that election.

• Absence during a field visit should trigger further verification, not be treated as conclusive proof of ineligibility.
• Database anomalies should be treated as verification flags rather than self-executing grounds for deletion.
• An inclusion remedy should not leave a person navigating conflicting instructions from registration officials and appellate bodies.