Form 7 has no signature from the person being deleted

The Election Commission has told the Supreme Court that bulk Form 7 objections in Uttar Pradesh were false and were never acted upon. I am less interested in that fight than in a plain feature of the form: it can be filed about you by somebody else, and nothing in it requires you to be told. I suggest a one-time code to the elector before any deletion takes effect, caps on bulk filings per BLO and booth, a public deletion register, and an audit trail the Commission can hand the Court directly.

Form 7 has no signature from the person being deleted. That is not a loophole; it is the design. It is an objection form: a third party tells the Electoral Registration Officer that a name should not be on the roll. The elector need not have signed it, or known.

On Friday (30 October 2026) the Election Commission told a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that it had found such forms and stopped them. Bar & Bench reports D.S. Naidu for the Commission:

“We found that bulk Form 7 applications had been submitted. Our officers checked and cross-checked them. They were false, and we have not acted upon them.”

The petitioners say 32 forms in Hata constituency were aimed at one community, two signed by booth-level officers (The Hindu, 30 October 2026). The Court has asked for a note and a compliance report. The figures on record:

• 4,65,520 deletions through Form 7 in Uttar Pradesh (The Indian Express)
• 252 appeals by electors against ERO orders, including deletions (The Indian Express)
• Over two crore voters removed after the revision, which ended in April with the roll at 13.39 crore (The Hindu)

That second figure is the one I keep returning to. Against 4,65,520 Form 7 deletions, 252 appeals. Either every one of those deletions was correct and undisputed, or most of the people named never learned that a stranger had objected. I do not know which. Neither does the Court.

The row itself has moved to Rajaji Marg. The INDIA bloc’s “public impeachment” of the Chief Election Commissioner, pushed back by rain, is being held today at 2.30 p.m., ahead of Sunday’s march to Ramlila Maidan (Millennium Post, 31 October 2026). Chief Justice, Chief Election Commissioner: I have nothing to add to that. What I want is smaller.

1. No Form 7 that survives ERO scrutiny should become a deletion until a one-time code has gone to the elector’s own registered mobile and been acknowledged against the EPIC. No acknowledgement, no deletion.
2. Rate caps on bulk filings, per BLO and per booth, with anything above the cap held for ERO review.
3. A public, searchable deletion register: who objected, on what ground, which officer signed.
4. A real-time audit trail, so the compliance report the Court wants is generated from the Commission’s system and signed by an officer, not assembled by affidavit.

The Commission will say the checks exist already: its affidavit describes BLOs being directed not to digitise a form without proper checking, and hearings before speaking orders under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (Indian Express, 30 October 2026). Fine. Then the code costs almost nothing — and a Commission that catches false bulk forms can surely warn the person named in them.

In April, writing about the SIR appeal portal, I asked for acknowledgement receipts and a route a voter could track (SIR Portal: Who’s Left Out?, 10 April 2026). This is the same request one step earlier: not the appeal after the name is gone, but the notice before it goes.

With regards,
Hemen Parekh
www.Iam-Immortal.ai / www.IndiaAGI.ai / www.YourContentCreator.in
31 Oct 2026