Form 7 and the Special Intensive Revision: Safeguarding Electoral Integrity

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

In the midst of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a political and procedural controversy has erupted over the alleged misuse of Form 7 — the prescribed form for seeking deletion of a voter's name from the electoral roll. On January 29, 2025, the Indian National Congress, in a formal letter to the Election Commission of India (EC), alleged that bulk applications were being filed through "systemic and coordinated efforts" to delete eligible voters and embolden the BJP's electoral advantage.

What is Form 7?

Form 7 is the prescribed statutory form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, used to file objections to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. As per Section 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950), every objection to the inclusion of a name in the roll shall be: 

• (a) in Form 7, and 
• (b) preferred only by a person whose name is already included in that roll. 

Form 7 can be used to object on specific grounds such as: 

• Death of the registered voter 
• Duplication of name in the roll 
• Shifting of residence to a different constituency 
• Ineligibility due to age, citizenship, or misrepresentation

Who Can File Form 7, and How Has This Changed? 

Earlier, only persons from the same booth or polling station were permitted to file a Form 7 objection. However, in 2022, the Election Commission of India amended the relevant rules to allow any voter in a constituency to file an objection — significantly widening the ambit of who can raise objections. 

To prevent misuse arising from this expanded eligibility, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is required to mandatorily verify all claims if an individual files more than five objections. Once a Form 7 application is received: 

• Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are required to conduct physical verification of the voter's address and eligibility. 
• In cases of death, verification requires confirmation signatures from three neighbours along with a death certificate. 
• If the voter is found absent, the BLO must make three physical visits to confirm whether the person has shifted before any deletion is recommended. 
• The concerned voter is then issued a notice for a hearing before any final decision. 
• Appeals against the ERO's decision may be made to the District Magistrate within 15 days of publication of the updated list.

What are the Key Legal Provisions Governing Form 7? 

Statutory Framework: 

The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, govern the entire process of electoral roll maintenance, including additions, deletions, and modifications. 

Penal Provisions: 

Filing a false declaration through Form 7 is a punishable offence under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, attracting: 

• Imprisonment of up to one year, or 
• A fine, or both. 

How Extensive is the Ongoing SIR? 

The current Special Intensive Revision is among the largest electoral exercises in recent times. Key statistics include: 

• More than 50.94 crore enumeration forms have been distributed since the launch of Phase II of the SIR, covering 99.94% of the nearly 51 crore voters included in this phase. 
• The SIR is currently underway in Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Puducherry, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Lakshadweep. 
• According to the draft electoral rolls published by the EC, names of 6.5 crore electors were removed from the draft rolls of nine States and three UTs as part of the ongoing SIR. Before the revision, these States and UTs had 51 crore voters; after publication of the draft rolls, the number fell to 44.4 crore. 
• EC officials confirmed that those removed were placed in the 'ASD' category — Absent, Shifted, and Dead/Duplicate. 
• The highest deletions were reported from Uttar Pradesh (2.89 crore), followed by Tamil Nadu (97 lakh) and Gujarat (74 lakh).

What is the Controversy?

The core controversy centres on the bulk submission of Form 7 applications by anonymous or fraudulent actors seeking mass deletion of voters from electoral rolls — a process critics allege is being exploited to disenfranchise voters belonging to backward and marginalised communities. 

The Congress party, in its letter to the EC, highlighted the following concerns: 

1. Forged signatures — The Hindu's reporting from Rajasthan and Gujarat found individuals who stated they had not submitted the Form 7 applications purportedly signed by them. 
2. Scale and timeline — The scale of objections and deletions sought against a compressed revision schedule raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and the EC's administrative capacity to verify every claim. 
3. Systemic misuse — The Congress alleged the misuse amounts to "systemic and coordinated efforts" to delete eligible voters and provide electoral advantage to the BJP.

What is the Way Ahead? 

The controversy highlights a fundamental tension in India's electoral framework: the need to keep electoral rolls updated and accurate must be balanced against the imperative to protect every eligible citizen's right to vote. Key measures required include: 

• Robust verification mechanisms to ensure no eligible voter is deleted without proper physical verification, notices, and hearings. 
• Strict enforcement of penal provisions under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against those filing false Form 7 declarations. 
• Transparent public reporting by the EC on the breakdown of deletions by category (dead, shifted, duplicate) to dispel allegations of politically motivated mass deletions. 
• Strengthened grievance redressal to allow affected voters adequate time and means to contest wrongful deletions before the finalisation of electoral rolls.

Conclusion 

The Form 7 controversy underscores the critical importance of procedural integrity in India's electoral process. While the statutory framework governing Form 7 already provides significant safeguards — mandatory physical verification, hearing notices, and penal provisions for false declarations — the alleged scale of fraudulent bulk submissions has exposed vulnerabilities that require urgent administrative and legislative attention. The Election Commission of India's response to these allegations, and its ability to ensure that not a single eligible voter is wrongfully disenfranchised, will be a crucial test of its institutional credibility and constitutional mandate as the guardian of free and fair elections in India.