चुनाव आयोग का फ़ॉर्म‑६ बदलाव पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का समर्थन कथन विवादास्पद

Election Commission Says Supreme Court ‘Upheld’ Form 6 Changes, But Did It?

New Delhi: The Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have been in the eye of a storm over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The Indian Express’ report on the recorded dissent of two of three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on the conduct of the contentious exercise forced the Election Commission of India on the weekend, to announce a flurry of changes.

In its press note on Saturday (September 26), the Election Commission said that the old Form 6 will be used in “non-SIR” periods, and defended changes brought to the form for inclusion of new voters by saying that it had been upheld by the Supreme Court. But a look at the apex court’s May judgement, raises more questions about the poll body’s defence on changes made to this crucial form.

The controversial change to the online Form 6 application, requiring applicants to map their parents’ details to the previous SIR, failing which they cannot proceed, was brought only in July, whereas the Supreme Court’s judgement was delivered in May.

While the Election Commission said that the declaration to Form 6 was upheld by the Supreme Court it does not answer why the form was quietly changed, evading parliamentary scrutiny. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 that flows from the Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 require that any change or amendment to the form can only be made by the government and are subject to parliamentary oversight.

The Election Commission’s note on Saturday skips mentioning that the Supreme Court’s order on May 27, held that while the poll body retains a degree of authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a SIR, such authority is “not unbounded” and must remain in the existing statutory scheme.

Further, the Election Commission's press note on Saturday, while saying that the original Form 6 will be used in non-SIR period, does not mention why this bifurcation is being brought, or why the change to the Form 6 under SIR was made at all and who approved it, evading parliament. It also does not mention why Form 6 has been used both as registering new electors and those seeking re-inclusion following deletion in the SIR.

How Form 6 changed and the Election Commissioners’ objections

The Wire reported in July on how the Form 6, the form Indians need to fill in order to demand inclusion in the electoral rolls, quietly underwent changes during the SIR.

The Election Commission first added a new declaration to be submitted along with Form 6 during the pilot SIR conducted in Bihar. Another page was added in the second round of the SIR in which the declaration form required voters to include their parents’ details in the previous SIR along with the same declaration sought in Bihar.

During the present round of SIR, the Form 6 itself has been changed for online applications, requiring applicants to provide their parents’ details from the previous SIR, failing which they cannot proceed to complete the application. This change to the Form 6 itself, The Wire has reported, cannot be done without parliament’s approval. And this was the substance of Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi’s objections to the changes to Form 6, as reported by The Indian Express.

The report said that Joshi had said on record the Form 6 cannot be changed without the government amending the rules, to which Sandhu had agreed. But the change was made anyway. Sandhu put on record on August 13 that it was “unauthorised and illegal” and “must be removed immediately”.

What EC said in response

In its press note on Saturday, the Election Commission makes no mention of the objections made by Sandhu and Joshi, on changes to Form 6 while applying online.

The press note simply says: “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.”

Change to Form 6 online brought in July, SC judgement delivered in May

The press note misleads on the fact that the Supreme Court judgement upholding the constitutionality of the SIR was delivered in May, while the change to the Form 6 application online on ECINet that does not allow voters to proceed to the next step to successfully complete their application unless they provide details of their parents’ details from the previous SIR, was only brought in July, in the third phase of the SIR.

EC skips mention of SC caution that changes must remain within statutory scheme

Even in upholding the Form 6 declaration that was brought in the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court’s judgement makes it clear that while the Election Commission retains a degree of authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a SIR, such authority is “not unbounded” and must remain in the existing statutory scheme.

The order referring to Form 6 said that while the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, sets out a framework of documentation; however, the same is tailored to the process of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) of the RP Act and “may not, in all situations, be capable of literal application to an exercise of the present nature”.

The judgement however added that while the Election Commission retains a degree of authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a SIR, such authority, however, is “not unbounded” and must remain in the existing statutory scheme.

What the SC order said

“In devising such a framework, the Commission must remain cognisant of the existing statutory scheme, and any departure therefrom must be informed by a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved,” the order said.

“The formulation of the documentation regime must thus reflect a calibrated balance in drawing from the statutory framework, while adapting it, where necessary, to effectively serve the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll,” it said.

No mention of why Form 6 was changed or who approved it

The Election Commission’s press note also does not mention why the Form 6 will be different in SIR and non-SIR periods, or why the Form 6 is being used for both purposes of registering new electors as well as those who were excluded in the exercise. It also makes no mention of why the Form 6 was changed at all in July, or who approved it, despite the two Election Commissioner’s objections being on record.

It simply states that, the SIR has been completed in 20 states and union territories including Bihar and West Bengal and any person "whose name has got left out during SIR or thereafter, and any person including young/first time voter, may apply to the concerned ERO, for inclusion in the electoral rolls under the process of continuous updation.”

For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.

This article went live on September twenty-seventh, two thousand twenty six, at thirty-two minutes past nine at night.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News