The Election Commission of India (ECI) has removed the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)-related declaration from within the online version of Form 6 and placed it separately. This “decision” followed a year and of sharp criticism related to the constitutionality and legality of having such a declaration in Form 6 instead of using established procedures for re-instating wrongly deleted voters (2025), the September 23 expose by The Indian Express and the aftermath: mass protests around an ill-motivated and unconstitutional SIR!
In the September 23 media disclosures, the dissent reportedly raised (in earlier months) by the two other Election Commissioners over the inclusion of the declaration in a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, figured prominently.
According to a subsequent November 4, 2026 investigation by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had separately questioned the change. The online form had required applicants to answer an additional SIR-related declaration before proceeding. The declaration was placed between Sections J and K of Form 6 as an annexure.
Applicants were required to choose between three statements. They had to state 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 the name of a parent appeared. An applicant could not proceed without answering the question.
What is crucial for all Indians to understand is that, all three options —in fact the procedure itself was self-concocted by the Gyanesh Kumar-headed ECI; the original decision to include the declaration, and the now, subsequent one to ‘remove’ it are both unauthorised procedures amounting to sacrilege upon sacrilege. Form 6 is only for registration of new, first-time voters. For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled.
If according to the recorded objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, a major one was that given the fact that Form 6 is not simply an ordinary, administrative document but a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, any changes to it could only happen through a legal amendment, which means going to Parliament. (It was on noting’s of May 16 and August 13 that EC, Vivek Joshi had first recorded this objection and thereafter his colleague EC Sandhu had described it as “unauthorised and illegal”, stating it should be removed. Despite these internal objections, Indian Express had reported that the additional (false) declaration continued to appear on the online version of the form during the SIR process. Only after the second media disclosure has this been separated.
The Commission changed its position more than once
The latest move is significant because it is not the first position taken by the ECI on the issue. When the controversy first came into public focus (September 2026) , the Commission defended its actions and maintained that its decisions had been taken in accordance with law. In a subsequent position—declared in the press release signed by all three Commissioners on September 26, 2026 — the Commission said that the SIR declaration would remain attached to the online Form 6 during the SIR period, while the ordinary statutory form would be used outside that period.
The position has now changed again. The ECI has separated the SIR declaration from Form 6 altogether. The Commission’s affidavit before the Supreme Court states that its Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 that the online application should be in two parts: the statutory Form 6 and the separate SIR declaration.
According to the affidavit referred to by The Indian Express, the original reason for putting the declaration together with Form 6 was “administrative convenience.” The Commission said that combining the two would allow the applicant to generate a single OTP and a single e-signature instead of having to complete two separate digital processes.
However, the affidavit also acknowledges an important concern. It states that issues arose because the manner in which the declaration was displayed on the online system could be understood as though Form 6 itself had been amended. The affidavit further accepts that Form 6 can only be amended by the Central Government. This is the central issue in the controversy.
The question was not merely whether an additional question could be displayed on an online portal. The question was whether a statutory form prescribed under law could effectively be changed in its implementation through an additional mandatory declaration unilaterally, without a legally ensured amendment. The ECI has now removed the declaration from within Form 6. But the wider dispute over the use of the form remains.
A statutory form and the question of procedure
Form 6 has a specific legal purpose. The electoral registration system contains different forms and procedures for different situations. A person seeking inclusion as a new elector is not necessarily in the same position as a person whose name was already included in an electoral roll and was subsequently removed. This distinction has become increasingly important during the SIR process.
Large numbers of voters have raised concerns after names were excluded from draft electoral rolls. In some cases, the question has arisen whether these voters should be required to seek inclusion again by filing Form 6. The issue is not simply one of filling out an online application.
A statutory form requires a person to make particular declarations. Those declarations are based on the legal and factual position of the applicant. If a person is genuinely seeking registration for the first time, the form may be appropriate.
But if a person was already an elector, had previously appeared on the electoral roll and was subsequently deleted, the circumstances are different. The reason for deletion becomes relevant. The procedure through which restoration is sought also becomes relevant.
The controversy over Form 6 has therefore raised a wider question: when a voter is deleted from an electoral roll, should the person automatically be required to start again as a new applicant, or should there be a clear and lawful procedure to examine the deletion and restore the name where the exclusion was wrongful? No. The Electoral Rolls 1960 provide a route, the question is why is this method not being followed? For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled
Bombay High Court and the problem of false declarations
A recent decision of the Bombay High Court has added another legal dimension to the debate over the use of Form 6. As reported by LiveLaw, the Court considered the position of voters who had shifted their residence.
The question was whether such voters could be required to use Form 6 or an SIR-related enumeration process requiring declarations that did not accurately reflect their actual position.
The Court distinguished between a genuinely new voter and a person who was already registered but had shifted residence. According to the LiveLaw report, the Court observed:
“Having considered the specific declarations that are to be made by a new voter in contrast to those that are required to be made by a voter who is applying for shifting of residence, it would be quite obvious that if a voter shifting residence as in the case of the present Petitioners, had filed an application in Form 6, they would not only be making a false declaration in their application for inclusion in an Electoral Roll for the first time, but would also be falsely declaring that their name was not included in any Assembly Constituency or Parliamentary Constituency in the past.”
The observation is important because it focuses on the truthfulness of the declaration itself. A voter cannot be expected to make a factually incorrect declaration merely because a particular administrative form is prescribed. As reported by LiveLaw, the Court also noted that false declarations may have consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Though the Bombay High Court matter concerned voters who had shifted residence, the principle has wider relevance to the Form 6 controversy. A first-time applicant, a voter who has shifted residence, and a voter whose name was wrongly deleted are in different factual situations. The procedure must recognise these distinctions, particularly when declarations in a statutory form carry legal consequences.
Deleted voters and the Delhi SIR dispute
The issue is now before the Supreme Court in relation to Delhi’s SIR process. The ECI’s November 3 clarification allowed persons missing from the draft roll, including previously registered voters, to seek inclusion through Form 6. Petitioners argue that voters who were already enrolled should be restored rather than treated as fresh applicants.
The ECI has said that, in specified circumstances, such applicants would not face action for a false declaration. But this itself raises a question: if special protection is needed for previously registered voters using Form 6, should the same form be used for fundamentally different categories of voters at all? The issue remains connected with the Supreme Court proceedings.
What the October 3 Online Assembly resolution says
The wider concerns over SIR and electoral-roll exclusions were also addressed in a resolution adopted at the Public Online National Assembly held on October 3, 2026. This assembly called by Vote for Democracy (VFD) included over 100 experts, professionals and activists from across India.
The resolution calls for the removal or resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, the complete scrapping of SIR and a return to the 2024 electoral rolls, with lawful revisions for additions and deletions. It also seeks the disbanding of the existing ECI, repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and a new broad-based and accountable appointment process.
The resolution further demands greater transparency in electoral data and software, including public access to electoral information in machine-readable form and disclosure of source code used in systems such as ECINet and ERONet.
It also raises concerns about Forms 6 and 7, software-driven exclusions, pending appeals and the denial of effective opportunities for verification and hearing.
Public notice, verification and the right to object
One of the important parts of the October 3 resolution concerns the process of deletion from electoral rolls. The resolution calls for a public social audit of electoral rolls and for greater participation by citizens and local communities in examining exclusions. It states that every proposed deletion should be publicly disclosed. This is in line with established ECI procedures: For re-instatement of voters deleted due to intended or otherwise deletions (mass or single) by the ECI, the ECI may only exercise its powers under Rule 18 of the Electors Rules 1960 that allows for restoration of deleted names by public hearing without any application or any form being filled
A voter should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the deletion and seek restoration where the exclusion is wrongful. The resolution also says there should be transparency about who sought the deletion, the grounds on which it was sought and what verification was carried out. Most importantly, it states:
No electoral-roll change should be affected without public notice, verification and an effective opportunity to object.
This principle is central to the present controversy.
If a voter has been wrongly deleted, the process should not simply end with an instruction that the person must submit a new form. The circumstances of the deletion must matter. The voter should have an effective opportunity to challenge the exclusion. The electoral authorities should have a procedure to examine the case and restore the name where the deletion was wrongful. The resolution also calls for documentation of wrongful deletions, pending claims and objections, Forms 6 and 7 and procedural violations across SIR-affected states.
The larger question remains
The ECI has removed the SIR declaration from within Form 6, addressing the immediate concern that the online presentation could create the impression that a statutory form had been amended. But the central question remains: should previously enrolled voters whose names have been deleted be required to seek inclusion again through Form 6?
The Bombay High Court has highlighted the difficulty of requiring voters to make declarations that do not correctly reflect their factual position. The issue is now also before the Supreme Court in relation to Delhi.
Removing the additional declaration from Form 6 may address one part of the controversy. It does not, however, settle the question of whether Form 6 is the appropriate procedure for restoring voters who were already enrolled and were subsequently deleted nor the inherently unlawful exercise being conducted presently –which is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Related:
“It Is Not Just Numbers”: Prakash Raj on the Exclusion of 13.6 Crore Indians | SIR | Teesta Setalvad
Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list?