The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court (SC) that it did not change the statutory Form 6 used to enrol new voters, but introduced a separate declaration form during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to help establish applicants’ eligibility.
In a counter-affidavit filed on Monday, the poll panel also defended its decision-making process, saying the Commission’s decisions are taken collectively and recorded in official files.
The affidavit comes amid allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions relating to the electoral roll revision without the approval of the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The apex court had earlier said it would examine the Commission’s records to determine whether decisions had been taken in accordance with the law. It also clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6.
Why the Form 6 dispute matters
Also Read
Form 6 is the application used by eligible citizens to seek inclusion in electoral rolls. During the SIR, the ECI introduced an additional declaration, asking applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to an earlier electoral roll.
The petitioner has questioned the legality of this requirement, arguing that the prescribed form cannot be altered without following the statutory procedure.
The ECI, however, said the declaration was a separate document introduced under its SIR orders and not an amendment to Form 6 itself. It said the declaration was subsequently modified to make it easier for applicants to establish their links with earlier electoral rolls.
Under the revised procedure, applicants can provide details of themselves or their relatives appearing in previous electoral rolls.
Those unable to furnish such details must submit Form 6 along with the prescribed supporting documents, the Commission said.
The poll panel maintained that the changes did not alter the underlying requirements for voter enrolment.
ECI defends decision-making process
The affidavit also rejected allegations that decisions were being taken unilaterally by the CEC. It said the views, suggestions, and queries of individual election commissioners are considered during deliberations, but do not themselves constitute a decision of the Commission.
Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the ECI’s business must, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. Where the commissioners disagree, the matter is decided by majority.
The ECI said decisions are taken at meetings of the commissioners and recorded in official files.
In urgent situations where an immediate order is necessary, approval may be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded, it added.
The Commission also questioned the basis of the petition, saying its allegations relied on a newspaper report and had not been independently verified with the respondents. It urged the court to dismiss the plea as not maintainable.
The top court is examining whether decisions concerning the SIR and other aspects of the Commission’s functioning complied with the statutory requirement of collective decision-making.