NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued instructions limiting the number of Form 7 applications an individual elector can file, aiming to discourage bulk objections to names on electoral rolls on unsubstantiated grounds and reduce the workload of field-level officials.
In a statement, the ECI said, “The Chief Electoral Officers of the states and Union Territories have informed us that instances of individual electors filing Form 7 objections in bulk have come to our notice. Such filings, allegedly made without substantiated grounds, were causing avoidable inconvenience to electors whose names were being challenged and increasing the workload of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and other field-level functionaries.”
Under the revised instructions, an individual elector can file a maximum of 10 Form 7 applications during the entire claims and objections period. During the continuous updating of electoral rolls, the limit has been fixed at five applications per month, the Commission said.
The restrictions apply to both online and offline submissions, it added.
Form 7 is used to object to the inclusion of a name in an electoral roll or to seek its deletion. Under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, such objections can be filed only by a person whose name is already included in the electoral roll of the constituency concerned.
Every application must be examined by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) in accordance with the prescribed rules.
The Commission noted that the Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023, already provides safeguards against bulk filing by individuals.
“Paragraph 11.3.2(ii) states that claims and objections submitted in bulk by an individual, including those sent by post, should not be entertained. Paragraph 11.4.5(ii) also provides for personal cross-verification by the ERO when the same person files objections in more than five cases,” the ECI said.
“However, the absence of a clearly defined numerical limit had left the matter to the judgement of EROs, creating difficulties for field-level officials,” the Commission said.
The ECI’s instructions also require EROs to ensure that Form 7 applications contain complete details and bear the objector’s original signature. “A stamp bearing the signature cannot substitute for the original signature. Officials have also been directed to verify the applicant’s identity against electoral roll records,” it said.
“Under Rule 17 of the 1960 rules, claims or objections not submitted within the prescribed period or in the specified form and manner must be rejected. Where an objection is not disposed of under Rules 17 or 18, the ERO must issue notice to the objector, hear the person in person, record separate statements for each Form 7 and assess the validity of the objections,” the ECI said.
Before passing an order, the ERO must also provide the elector whose name is being challenged with an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with Rules 19 and 20, it added.
The Commission has further directed that action be initiated under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, if an ERO finds that an applicant has knowingly made a false statement or declaration in Form 7.
Chief Electoral Officers have been asked to circulate the instructions among all EROs, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and other field-level functionaries and ensure adequate publicity to promote compliance.