The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the inclusion of a person in the electoral roll through Form 6 (application for new voter registration) will not give them a right to vote if such inclusion occurs after the qualifying date notified by the Election Commission of India.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by Mostari Banu and connected matters concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. Justice Joymalya Bagchi distinguished between a person’s right to get enrolled in the electoral roll through Form 6 and the right to vote as per the final electoral rolls prepared with reference to the qualifying date.

Referring to Section 14(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Court noted that the qualifying date for preparation or revision of electoral rolls is the 1st day of January, April, July or October of the year with reference to which a person must have attained the age of eighteen years to be eligible for registration as an elector.

Justice Bagchi explained that it was because of the qualifying date cut-off that the Supreme Court, in its order passed on February 24, had clarified that the supplementary final lists published will be deemed to be part of the first final list published on February 28. “There are differences. One is an amendment of the electoral roll, another is the electoral roll which goes for polls. The electoral roll which goes for polls is as per the qualifying date, which is announced by the ECI. That is why we had to pass the order that supplementary list… That does not take away an individual’s right to include himself under Form 6 but his inclusion will not give him the right to vote,” Justice Bagchi observed.

During the hearing, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that a large number of Form 6 applications were being deposited while the adjudication of claims and objections was still ongoing. Banerjee claimed that a notification issued by the ECI on 27 March had extended the time for filing Form 6, and that 30,000 such forms had been deposited by a single person. The petitioners prayed that the details of Form 6 deposited with the ECI be published booth-wise.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, countered the submissions and asserted that if a person has a genuine right to be enrolled, that right cannot be thwarted. He added that any grievance could be raised by filing an objection in terms of Form 7.

This led Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for the petitioners, to contend that there has to be a qualifying date under the statute and that the ECI had arbitrarily changed the date, opening the floodgates against the statute.

The Chief Justice remarked that the petitioners’ averments were only verbal submissions and nothing had been placed on record. The CJI also suggested that the issue could be raised before the Appellate Tribunal.

Noting that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had stated in his letter to the Supreme Court that pending adjudications would likely be decided by April 7, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 6.

The Court allowed the Appellate Tribunals hearing appeals against exclusions from West Bengal’s electoral rolls to entertain fresh documents subject to verification.

Case Title: Mostari Banu v. The Election Commission of India and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)