Election Commission completes Form 6 U-turn, drops SIR para a Commissioner called ‘illegal’

IN THE latest of a series of U-turns that have effectively undone almost every decision the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had objected to in 14 notes over 10 months, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has now taken the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration out of the online version of the statutory voter enrolment form, Form 6, on its ECINet portal in the states where the SIR is still under way.

What this means is that the declaration inserted between Sections J and K of the online enrolment application for new voters is no longer part of Form 6. This declaration asked applicants to choose one of three statements: whether their name appeared in the electoral roll during the last SIR held in the early 2000s, whether the name of a parent or grandparent appeared in that roll, or whether neither their name nor that of their parents appeared in it.

An applicant could not proceed without answering it. The development comes after the Commission told the Supreme Court, in its counter-affidavit filed on October 26, that its ER (Electoral Roll) Division had decided on October 21 to split the two.

The affidavit says the SIR-related declaration had been placed inside Form 6 so that an applicant would generate a single OTP and a single e-signature rather than two, and that this “bonafide objective became a subject matter of deliberation and suggestions”.

It goes on to state, “It has been decided vide decision dt. 21.10.2026 of the ER Division that as in the case of submitting the Application in Form 6 in a physical format, the online Application shall also be in two parts i.e.

Form 6 as prescribed in the Rules and the SIR Declaration.” This is the third position the Commission has taken on Form 6 in six weeks, and it completes a reversal. On September 23, The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had objected to the change, on the ground that Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that only the Central Government can amend it.

Joshi put that on record on May 16. Sandhu concurred on May 19. The question appeared on the online form anyway in July, as this newspaper first reported on July 12. On August 13, Sandhu called it “unauthorised/illegal” and said it must be removed immediately.

It was still there when the investigation was published. The Commission’s first answer, in a press note issued the same day, did not mention Form 6 at all. It said “all actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission”, described the Commissioners’ notes as “operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages”, and said every decision of the past year was “an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission”.

Three days later, on September 26, the full Commission met and issued a second note. On Form 6, it said two things. “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.” This meant that the declaration in the online version of Form 6 would be limited to the SIR period, leaving it in place wherever the intensive revision was still running, such as Delhi and Maharashtra.

This was implemented and the declaration was then removed from the online Form 6 in the states where the SIR had concluded. It stayed between Section J & K where the SIR was still running. On October 12, the Supreme Court said it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6.

On October 21, the ER Division of the ECI decided to take the declaration out of the Form 6 page everywhere and make it a separate document. That is what the form now shows on the ECINet portal. The affidavit still maintains that Form 6 was never amended.

“There is no substance in the contention that Form 6 has been amended by the Commission vide the SIR Orders." However it does acknowledge that “on a review of the manner in which Form 6 and the Declaration were displayed on the IT platform some concerns arose for the reason that the manner in which the Declaration was presented in the online system was such that it could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made.

As stated earlier, Form 6 can only be amended by the Central Government.” The Commission’s own explanation for putting the declaration inside Form 6 is that it saved the applicant an OTP. Two separate documents would have required two one-time passwords and two e-signatures.

One page produced one of each. What the investigation found The Indian Express reported on September 23 that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken in the Commission’s name without their knowledge.

Their notes ran to areas that go to the heart of what the Commission does: who gets registered as a voter, who is deleted and restored, who appeals against those restorations, and who controls the software on which the electoral roll is now maintained.

Another objection concerned the Commission’s own functioning, including an administrative order of July 28 that changed the allocation of work among senior officers, including the IT files, without the two Commissioners being consulted.

Both wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary. The next day they jointly set the order aside. Five of the 14 notes were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. No reply from him is on record. Between May and August, the full Commission did not meet once.

The Commission’s response on September 23 was that the notes were “suggestions” and “inputs”, part of normal deliberation, and that the important decisions of the past year carried the unanimous approval of the full Commission.

In the five weeks since, the Commission has moved on almost every point the two Commissioners had raised. 🔴 Meetings: Agendas will be circulated before every Commission meeting and minutes issued...