INSTANCES OF BULK FORM 7 SUBMISSIONS during the Uttar Pradesh Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken up by the Supreme Court on Friday, October 20, 2026, in response to the petition filed in the Supreme Court in February 2026. 

Form-7 is a statutory provision which is used to file in limited and bona fide objections to the inclusion of names in the electoral roll. It is also used to enable deletions — a provision which has become the main point of controversy. 

The cases were addressed by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana, in response to an application filed against the Uttar Pradesh SIR process by Congress Member of Parliament Tanuj Punia, and Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh.

See Also: “Decisions were unanimously passed”: Election Commission submits affidavit to the Supreme Court; states no irregularities in SIR-related decisions

Election Commission of India informed that while such “false” Form 7s for voter deletions were found, they were not accepted by the body. 

The Supreme Court Bench directed the ECI to examine the alleged irregularities related to the bulk submission of Form 7 for name deletions, and asked the petitioners to create a note on the unresolved irregularities of the ECI. 

What is the false Form 7 case in Uttar Pradesh? 

This particular application has been in the apex court for the past eight months. It was filed in February 2026, and was taken up by the apex court on August 5, 2026. The apex court then directed the ECI to furnish a detailed response within two weeks, which was submitted on September 16, 2026. 

During the hearing on October 30, 2026, the ECI informed that such false forms were not accepted. Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, stated that bulk Form 7s were given by the office. But after critical scrutiny by EC officials, the forms were found to be false, and hence were rejected. 

The petitioner's counsel, represented by Senior advocate Salman Khurshid and advocate Shariq Ahmed, however, emphasized for a “judicial scrutiny” over the ECI’s claim that none of the false Form 7s were accepted.  

Speaking in front of the Bench, Advocate Ahmed raised the point that there must be a judicial scrutiny to the ECI’s claim, as the lack of any legal redressals led to the valorization of bulk Form 7 submissions in Karnataka and Telangana. 

See Also: Indian Supreme Court Demands ‘Transparent’ Answers From Modi’s Government on Voter Purge

To build on their argument, Advocate Ahmed cited the instance of the Hata Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh. In the Hata constituency, 32 Form 7s were submitted, of which two were signed by the booth-level officer (BLO). Interestingly, all the names flagged in these 32 forms belonged to one particular community. 

The apex court bench asked the petitioners counsel to file a compliance report detailing all these instances of irregularities to the court. 

What did the petition against the "false" Form 7 submissions state?

Congress MP from Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, Tanuj Punia was filed in the month of February 2026. The plea noted numerous Form 7 applications, which were filed with incomplete or false details of the person filing, invalid identification details, and forged signatures. In some cases, the petition noted that some individuals denied filing any Form 7 objections. 

Furthermore, the petition states that several BLOs received pre-filled Form 7s which called for name deletions of those, whose names were already verified in the SIR process. 

Stating these instances, the plea noted that there is a serious irregularity in the integrity of the objection mechanism, and sought action under section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 

[Rh/AR/RS]

Suggested Readings: