Election Commission reverses decision on Form 6 after controversy
Declaration is no longer mandatory for new voter applications in areas with completed SIR.
Two Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had termed the amendment made in Form 6 as illegal, which led to widespread uproar across the country, prompting Congress party leaders and workers to protest nationwide. The Election Commission has now withdrawn that amendment.
According to news agency PTI,
The Election Commission of India has removed the requirement related to the controversial announcement associated with Form 6 for the registration of new voters in those states where the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR has been completed. This announcement will now only be mandatory for applicants in those states and Union Territories where the SIR process is still ongoing. Objections had arisen from within the Commission regarding the manner in which this announcement was added.
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, raised this issue and called for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. After objections from legal experts and several former Chief Election Commissioners, the Election Commission was ultimately compelled to withdraw its illegal controversial decision.
Form 6 had a controversial amendment,
which required applicants to state their family connection with the voter list prepared during the previous SIR. They had to provide information on whether their name, or that of their parents or grandparents, was registered in the previous SIR voter list. If the relevant names were present, details of the polling station and serial number in the list were also requested.
Now, during the application process to become a new voter in areas where the SIR has been completed, this announcement will not be mandatory.
These changes on the Election Commission's ECINET portal were made a few days after the decision in which the Commission had decided to limit the necessity of the announcement only to areas where the SIR was ongoing. Thus, the application process on the portal has been modified to align with the Commission's decision. However, in areas where the Special Intensive Revision is still ongoing, applicants will still need to provide this additional information.
This matter came to light following reports in the English newspaper The Indian Express, which detailed the inclusion of the announcement in the online version of Form 6 and the objections raised by the Election Commissioners. According to the reports, the controversy was not only about the information requested in the announcement. The question was also about under what authority and process such additional conditions were added to the prescribed form for voter registration.
The newspaper reported on July 12 that a new announcement had been included between the two sections of the Form 6 submitted online on ECINET. This announcement required the applicant to provide information about their name or that of their parents or grandparents in the previous SIR list. Additionally, they were asked to provide details of the booth and serial number. However, at the same time, this announcement was not present in the Form 6 that could be downloaded from the Commission's website.
Subsequently, last week, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to the inclusion of this announcement. Both commissioners stated that such a change could only be made through the prescribed amendment process. According to the report, the authority to amend forms related to voter registration, removal of names, and correction of details under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 rests solely with the central government.
Election Commissioner Sandhu had termed this change as “unauthorized/illegal” and demanded its removal. This announcement related to Form 6 was one of the key issues of disagreement between Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and both Election Commissioners. It also raised objections regarding the decision-making process within the Commission and adherence to established legal provisions. The report notes Sandhu's objection to labeling the change as illegal.
The report also mentioned that in the past ten months, Sandhu and Joshi had officially recorded their objections at least 14 times. In these objections, they raised issues regarding the Commission's operations not being in accordance with constitutional provisions. The disagreement over the announcement related to Form 6 was part of this broader controversy. The objections from both commissioners raised questions about how decisions were being made by the Commission and how much of the prescribed process was being followed.
On the other hand, the Election Commission has maintained that no amendment was made to Form 6. According to the Commission, this announcement was an additional requirement related to SIR. It also stated that the Supreme Court had upheld this announcement in its decision regarding the Bihar SIR. Currently, after the amendment, the scope of its necessity has been limited: where the SIR has been completed, the announcement will not be required; where the process is ongoing, this condition will remain applicable.