Form 7 Controversy & Electoral Rolls

Form 7 and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have triggered concerns over large‑scale voter deletions, alleged misuse of legal provisions, and potential violation of the spirit of universal adult suffrage under Article 326.

Background: Electoral Rolls and Legal Framework

• Electoral rolls are prepared under Article 324 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, which governs the preparation, correction and revision of electoral rolls.
• Section 21 of the RPA 1950 provides for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls; Sections 22 and 23 allow the correction, inclusion and deletion of entries in specified circumstances.
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 operationalise these provisions and prescribe statutory forms such as Form 6, 7 and 8 to maintain electoral rolls.

For UPSC GS II, this topic links to the Representation of the People’s Act, constitutional bodies (ECI), and issues of governance and democratic accountability.

What is Form 7?

Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, objections and corrections to electoral rolls must be made in prescribed forms.

• Form 6: Application for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll (new registration).
• Form 7: Application for objecting to the inclusion of a name, or for seeking deletion of an existing entry from the roll.
• Form 8: Application for correction of particulars or transposition (shifting within constituency).

Form 7 requires the applicant to specify grounds such as death, under‑age, non‑citizenship, permanent shifting, or duplicate registration, and the onus of proof lies on the objector.

The Core of the Controversy

Alleged Misuse of Form 7

The current controversy arises from allegations that Form 7 is being used in a coordinated and bulk manner to remove genuine voters without their knowledge, especially during the SIR exercise of 2025–26.

Key concerns:

• Bulk deletions:
  • During Phase 2 of SIR across 9 states and 3 UTs, about 6.5 crore electors were removed from draft rolls.
  • Uttar Pradesh alone accounted for around 2.8–2.9 crore deletions (about 43% of total removals).
• Procedural lapses and lack of physical verification:
  • ECI manuals and guidelines stipulate that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must conduct field verification and issue notice before deletion.
  • Civil society reports and media accounts from different states highlight that BLO visits often do not happen in practice and names are deleted relying on lists and digital matching.
• Discriminatory targeting and mass objections:
  • There are fears that particular localities or socio‑economic groups may be disproportionately affected when Form 7 is filed “en masse” by organised actors, even though legal responsibility for establishing grounds lies with the objector.
  • Complaints from states like Tamil Nadu in earlier revisions noted unilateral deletions and lack of adequate communication to affected voters.​

This raises the possibility that a tool meant for roll purification is being weaponised to disenfranchise legitimate electors.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025–26

Objective and Design

The Election Commission launched a Special Intensive Revision in 2025 to clean up electoral rolls in selected states and Union Territories.

• Aim:
  • Remove “D‑voters” – Duplicate, Dead, or Displaced electors – to improve accuracy and ensure “one elector, one entry” across databases.
  • Harmonise electoral rolls using digital tools, facial de‑duplication and cross‑checking with other databases for a “One Nation, One Data” approach.
• Scale and process:
  • Conducted across 12 states/UTs in phases, starting October 2025; draft rolls revealed deletion of about 6.5 crore names out of 50.9 crore electors in these jurisdictions.
  • The Supreme Court, while examining the exercise in Bihar, noted that SIR was a departure from routine summary revision and insisted that reasons and procedures must be clearly recorded.​

Emerging Concerns

• Risk of voter disenfranchisement:
  • Critics argue that the pace and scale of deletions increase the chance that eligible voters will discover their removal only on polling day.
  • Socio‑economic factors—literacy, documentation, floods or migration—limit the ability of citizens to monitor draft rolls or file objections.​
• Transparency and information gaps:
  • The Supreme Court directed that details of deleted voters and reasons (death, migration, duplication etc.) be published openly to allow citizens to verify their status, rather than relying on BLOs or political intermediaries.​

Legal and Institutional Safeguards Against Misuse

Statutory and Rule‑based Protections

• Principle of natural justice (hearing before deletion):
  • Under the Registration of Electors Rules, objections must be decided after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
  • The Supreme Court has emphasised that revisions must follow the “prescribed manner” under RPA and Rules; arbitrary or blanket exercises are inconsistent with the statute.​
• Notice and publication requirements:
  • Rules 8A, 9, 10 and 11 require publication of draft rolls and lists of additions/deletions, and enable claims and objections within prescribed time.
  • The Court has suggested that lists of deleted names with remarks (death, migration, duplication etc.) be made easily accessible to the public to enhance transparency.​
• Verification of grounds for deletion:
  • Deletions on grounds of death should be supported by documentary evidence such as a death certificate or matching with official registries.
  • “Shifting” or absence requires BLO field verification at both old and new addresses wherever feasible, not mere digital inference.
  • Form 7 guidelines explicitly state that the applicant must substantiate the reason; the ERO cannot mechanically act on unverified objections.

Institutional Oversight

• The Election Commission issues manuals and detailed instructions to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), Assistant EROs and BLOs on handling Form 7, conducting house‑to‑house verification, and ensuring non‑discriminatory deletions.​
• Courts have begun to exercise closer scrutiny over large‑scale revision exercises, particularly where they may impact vulnerable populations or depart from statutory procedure.​

Challenges in the Digital Age

Technology‑driven De‑duplication

• Software‑based facial and data matching is increasingly used to detect duplicate entries across constituencies and states.
• Such systems risk false positives, where different individuals with similar names, demographic details or photographs are treated as duplicates and marked for deletion.

Illustration: two voters with similar names and approximate ages in adjacent constituencies may be algorithmically flagged as “duplicate” unless carefully verified on the ground.

Digital Divide and Awareness

• Many rural, poor, or less‑literate citizens may not regularly access online portals or understand the importance of checking draft rolls during SIR.
• Physical notices at ERO offices or panchayat buildings may not be sufficient where mobility is low or information dissemination is weak, leading to silent disenfranchisement.​

Administrative Capacity and Political Capture

• BLOs are often overburdened and may rely on party agents for feedback on deletion lists, creating scope for partisan influence in deciding which names get objected to under Form 7.
• When bulk Form 7 applications are filed through organised networks, individual electors rarely know that an objection has been raised until their name disappears from the roll.

Significance for UPSC GS Paper II

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

• Article 326 guarantees universal adult suffrage; clean electoral rolls are essential, but so is the protection of every eligible citizen’s right to vote.
• The Form 7 controversy highlights the tension between administrative efficiency (removing ineligible entries) and constitutional rights (avoiding wrongful exclusion).
• It raises questions about how far a constitutional body like the ECI can go in designing new revision mechanisms (like SIR) without explicit legislative backing or clear safeguards.​

Linkages with Key Acts and Institutions

• Representation of the People Act, 1950:
  • Section 21 – preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
  • Section 22 – correction of entries, including deletion on defined grounds.
  • Section 23 – inclusion of names on application.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • Deals with conduct of elections, corrupt practices and offences; mass disenfranchisement or discriminatory deletions can have implications for the fairness of the electoral process.
• Election Commission of India (ECI):
  • As a constitutional body under Article 324, the ECI must balance innovation (digital tools, SIR) with legality, transparency and accountability.

Potential Mains‑style Analytical Angles

• Impact of large‑scale digital revision exercises on trust in electoral democracy.
• Need for statutory codification of safeguards around bulk deletions and algorithmic de‑duplication.
• Comparative assessment of inclusion‑errors (ineligible names present) versus exclusion‑errors (eligible voters deleted) in a developing democracy like India.

Way Forward: Reform and Safeguards

• Stronger due process: Make service of notice, proof of delivery, and opportunity of hearing mandatory and auditable before any deletion based on Form 7.
• Public dashboards and searchable lists: Publish real‑time, constituency‑wise lists of proposed and final deletions, with reasons, on accessible platforms and in local languages.
• Independent audits: Conduct third‑party audits of SIR‑related deletions, with sampling across regions and social groups to detect bias or systematic errors.
• Capacity building of BLOs: Reduce over‑reliance on digital matching, ensure adequate staffing and training for field verification, and insulate BLOs from political pressure.
• Citizen‑centric grievance redressal: Simplify online and offline mechanisms for restoration of names, including special camps, helplines and time‑bound appeal processes before final rolls are frozen.

For UPSC aspirants, this issue can be used as a contemporary example while writing answers on electoral reforms, independence of constitutional bodies, and the balance between technology and rights in governance.