North India Statesman
In a significant retreat amid mounting institutional friction and political scrutiny, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has removed a contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration from its online voter registration portal, ECINET. The digital modification—inserted directly into statutory Form 6 used for new voter enrollment—was dropped for states where the SIR exercise has concluded. The rollback follows internal dissent from two sitting Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who formally flagged the alteration as “illegal” and “unauthorised” due to the absence of statutory approval from the Union Law Ministry.
The Core Dispute: What Was Inserted in Form 6?
Form 6 is the statutory application prescribed under Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960—subordinate legislation framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It is filled out by Indian citizens seeking inclusion of their names in electoral registries upon turning 18.
The controversy erupted after an additional digital declaration was embedded between Sections J and K of the online Form 6 on the ECINET application:
-
Ancestry Linkage Clause: The online clause mandated new applicants to declare whether they, or their parents or grandparents, were enrolled in previous intensive revision rolls, asking for previous booth numbers, serial numbers, and EPIC particulars.
-
Discrepancy with Official Form: While the downloadable physical and PDF versions of Form 6 hosted on the EC portal contained no such mandate, the online portal made submitting the application practically contingent on addressing the declaration.
-
Disenfranchisement Fears: Critics and opposition groups argued the clause posed an undue barrier to first-time voters, particularly those whose families migrated or whose predecessors were omitted during historic voter revision drives.
Commissioners’ Internal Dissent Over Subordinate Legislation
The internal divide within the poll panel came to light after internal communications revealed that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had expressed grave procedural objections over several months.
The commissioners noted that statutory forms framed under the 1960 Rules cannot be altered administratively by an internal executive decision of the commission. Under parliamentary frameworks, any substantive changes to voter enrollment, deletion, or correction templates can legally be promulgated only by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice through formal gazette amendments. Labeling the digital insertion as ultra vires and legally unsustainable, the commissioners called for its immediate removal to prevent administrative overreach and potential voter disenfranchisement.
The ECI’s Position and the Rollback
In defense, the Commission previously maintained that Form 6 had not undergone a permanent legal alteration. The poll body asserted that the declaration served merely as a specialized, auxiliary verification safeguard introduced during the intensive revision to prevent wrongful roll additions, citing judicial acknowledgments during earlier revision exercises in Bihar.
However, on September 26, the Commission announced that for the non-SIR period, standard forms strictly applicable under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would govern new registrations. Following through on that circular, the digital declaration has now disappeared from the ECINET portal for states where final SIR electoral rolls have been published, though it reportedly remains active in jurisdictions where intensive revisions are currently underway.
Political and Institutional Fallout
The reversal comes at a turbulent juncture for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The disclosure of dissent among the three-member constitutional bench has provided fresh ammunition to the INDIA bloc, which has launched street agitations and threatened legislative motions alleging partisan voter suppression. While the quiet withdrawal of the declaration resolves an immediate digital anomaly on the ECINET portal, the controversy has brought the constitutional boundaries of poll administration and electoral roll integrity back into sharp focus.
