Supreme Court Assures No Prosecution for Voters Deleted in Maharashtra SIR — Form 6 Issue

Overview The Supreme Court on 26 October 2026 gave an oral assurance that any voter whose name was removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra will not be prosecuted for filing Form 6 . The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , agreed to hear a petition challenging the mass deletion of voters on 5 November 2026 . Key Developments The Court said no voter will face prosecution for applying for re‑registration after deletion. Petitioner Arun Anantagiri highlighted that thousands of residents in electoral roll were marked absent because of large‑scale redevelopment projects in Mumbai and Pune. Senior advocate Arvind Datar cited 3,500 redevelopment projects in Mumbai and 1,500 in Pune as the cause of the deletions. Deleted voters are being forced to submit Form 6 , which treats them as fresh voters, a situation that could attract penal provisions. The petitioner urged the Election Commission to issue a separate form exclusively for voters deleted in the SIR. Important Facts The deadline for filing claims and objections to the draft electoral roll was 26 October 2026 . The petition argues that the deletion process ignored the displacement caused by redevelopment, leading to wrongful removal of legitimate voters. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several GS topics. It illustrates the functioning of the Supreme Court in safeguarding fundamental rights, specifically the right to vote (Article 326). It also highlights the role of the Election Commission in maintaining an accurate electoral roll and the procedural safeguards required during the SIR . Understanding the impact of urban redevelopment projects on voter registration links polity with urban economics. Way Forward Potential steps include: (i) the Election Commission issuing a dedicated Form 6 for SIR‑deleted voters; (ii) a review mechanism to cross‑verify displacement due to redevelopment before deletion; (iii) continuous monitoring by civil society to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised. The Supreme Court’s assurance provides temporary relief, but systematic reforms are needed to prevent recurrence.