ECI Drops Controversial SIR Clause From Form 6 Following Objection Over Its Legality

ECI Withdraws SIR Declaration From Form 6 After Two Election Commissioners Flag Legal Issues

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has removed the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration from the online Form 6 application for new voters, bringing an end to a series of changes that followed objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The declaration, which was earlier included on the ECINet portal between Sections J and K of Form 6, required applicants to disclose whether their names or those of their parents or grandparents featured in electoral rolls during the previous SIR exercise conducted in the early 2000s.

Applicants had to select one of three options before submitting their enrolment applications. The requirement has now been separated from Form 6 and placed in an independent document.

Sandhu and Joshi Raised Objections Over Legality

The latest decision follows repeated objections by the two Election Commissioners regarding the addition of the SIR declaration to the statutory voter registration form.

In his May 16 note, Vivek Joshi argued that Form 6 could not be modified without a formal amendment to the law. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently raised the issue on May 19 and, in a communication dated August 13, described the inclusion as “unauthorised/illegal”, demanding its immediate removal.

The development was also addressed in the ECI’s counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on October 26.

According to the affidavit, the Commission’s Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 to separate the SIR declaration from Form 6. The Commission explained that the declaration had initially been incorporated into the online application to avoid requiring applicants to complete two OTP verifications and two e-signatures.

Following a review, the Commission decided that online applications would also be submitted in two separate parts, similar to the procedure for physical applications.

Three Changes to Form 6 in Six Weeks

The latest development marks the third change in the Commission’s position on Form 6 within six weeks.

On September 23, an investigation revealed that Sandhu and Joshi had objected to the modification, pointing out that Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. They maintained that only the Central Government had the authority to amend the statutory form.

On September 26, the full Commission clarified that the SIR declaration would continue during the intensive revision exercise, while the original form would apply outside the SIR period.

Accordingly, the declaration was removed from Form 6 in states where the SIR process had been completed but remained in place in states where the exercise was continuing.

The Supreme Court clarified on October 12 that it had neither approved nor rejected the modified Form 6. Subsequently, on October 21, the ECI decided to display the SIR declaration separately on its online platform.

Commission Admits Online Presentation Could Create Confusion

In its affidavit, the ECI maintained that it had never formally amended Form 6 through its SIR orders.

However, it acknowledged that the manner in which the declaration appeared on the online platform could give the impression that the statutory form had been changed. The Commission reiterated that amendments to Form 6 could only be made by the Central Government.

Several Other Objections Also Followed by Administrative Changes

The Form 6 issue is part of a wider set of disagreements within the Election Commission. An earlier investigation reported that Sandhu and Joshi had raised at least 14 objections over a period of 10 months concerning voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals and the management of electoral roll software.

Following these objections, the Commission introduced several administrative changes.

These included circulating meeting agendas in advance, issuing minutes after meetings, requiring Commission approval for official foreign travel and introducing additional scrutiny of new IT modules and portals.

On October 14, the ECI also constituted a committee to audit the ECINet platform and examine its compliance with applicable laws and rules. The committee includes senior election officials and independent experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru.

Changes were also made to give field-level electoral officers greater flexibility in handling voter verification, document submissions and discrepancies in electoral records.

Additionally, the Commission directed officials to facilitate the inclusion of 97 voters in Goa who had been unable to get their names restored through the ECINet system despite receiving clearance from local electoral registration officers.

Despite these developments, the ECI has maintained before the Supreme Court that its major decisions were taken unanimously and that the changes were intended to correct certain administrative procedures.