Xpress News24
New Delhi: Changes made to the online Form 6 used for registering new voters have triggered a fresh controversy around the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, with two Election Commissioners raising objections to the changes and the Congress demanding greater transparency from the poll panel.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded objections to several decisions linked to voter registration, electoral-roll revision and the management of election databases. The issue came into focus after an investigation reported that the two commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months.
At the centre of the latest dispute is the version of Form 6 available on the ECINet portal, which is used by citizens seeking registration as new voters. A new declaration section linked to the SIR process was added to the online process. It asked applicants to indicate whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR conducted in the early 2000s. A third option covered applicants whose name and whose parents’ names did not appear in that earlier roll.
The controversy intensified because, although the declaration section was reportedly not marked as mandatory, applicants could not proceed with submission without answering it. The two Election Commissioners questioned the legal basis for making such changes to Form 6.
According to documents reported by The Indian Express, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi had recorded his objections in May. The argument was that Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and therefore cannot be altered without following the procedure required for amending those rules. The report said the commissioners also raised concerns about the possible impact on young and first-time voters.
The dispute is not limited to Form 6. The reported objections also covered the functioning of ECINet and ERONet, including concerns over greater centralisation of control over electoral-roll databases at the Election Commission headquarters in Delhi. The issue has raised questions about how much operational control remains with Electoral Registration Officers and other officials working at the field level.
The Election Commission, however, has rejected suggestions that the developments represent a split within the three-member constitutional body. In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Commission said written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks are a normal part of its decision-making process.
The poll panel maintained that all its official orders and decisions follow constitutional and statutory procedures. It also said that decisions taken over the past year, including those relating to SIR, were approved unanimously by the full Commission. According to the ECI, highlighting individual internal observations without considering the wider body of decisions and approvals presents only one part of the picture.
The Commission also defended the security architecture of its digital platforms, saying ECINet operates under data-security protocols, audit controls and safeguards against unauthorised manipulation. It said Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continue to exercise their statutory powers under the law.
The issue has meanwhile turned into a political confrontation. Congress leaders have demanded that the written dissent notes be made public and questioned the manner in which the Election Commission is handling the electoral-roll revision process. Congress MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the disagreements recorded by the two commissioners should be viewed in the context of transparency and accountability. The party has also demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Singhvi also cited figures relating to voter deletions during different stages of the SIR exercise and expressed concern over the number of voters who may face scrutiny or be asked to provide additional documents. These figures and projections are claims made by the Congress and should be distinguished from figures independently confirmed by the Election Commission.
The immediate question now is how the disputed Form 6 process will operate for new applicants and whether further changes will be made to the online registration system. The wider disagreement over the legal framework for SIR-related declarations, the role of field officers and control of electoral databases is also likely to remain under scrutiny.
