The Election Commission on Monday told the Supreme Court that it had not amended Form 6, the statutory application used by first-time voters to register, and that the additional declaration introduced during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a separate document. However, in a significant admission, the poll panel acknowledged that the way the declaration was displayed online could be construed as an amendment, and said it had separated the two from October 21.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the EC maintained that only the central government has the authority to amend Form 6, which is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The SIR declaration, it said, was a separate document and had not been incorporated into the statutory form.
The commission explained that the declaration was displayed alongside Form 6 on the online application portal to allow applicants to complete the process using a single one-time password (OTP) and electronic signature, Bar and Bench reported.
However, acknowledging that this presentation could give the impression that the form had been amended, the EC said a decision was taken on October 21 to split the online application into two parts – Form 6 and the separate SIR declaration – as is already the case with physical forms.
The separate declaration had been at the centre of a controversy over the SIR exercise. It required applicants seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll. Critics argued that the requirement could create an additional hurdle for first-time voters, particularly those whose families did not figure in the older rolls.
The issue had earlier come up before the Supreme Court on October 5, when Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the court had not approved any modified version of Form 6. The observation came after the EC, in a September 26 statement, had claimed that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the top court. The CJI had said that the court wanted to examine the EC's records to ascertain who had made the changes.
The poll panel has removed the additional declaration from online Form 6 in states and Union Territories where the SIR exercise has been completed. The requirement, however, continues in places where the revision is still underway.
The EC's affidavit was filed in response to a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh, who challenged the alleged changes to Form 6 and raised concerns over the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Supreme Court had issued notices to the EC, the CEC and other officials.
The affidavit also came against the backdrop of a September Indian Express report, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on record at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and procedures adopted by the poll panel under Gyanesh Kumar. Their objections covered key aspects of the SIR, including the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the handling of electoral-roll data.
ALL SIR DECISIONS UNANIMOUS, EC TELLS SC
The EC also rejected allegations that Gyanesh Kumar had taken decisions on the SIR exercise unilaterally, without the concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
It maintained that all three SIR orders – issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026 – were based on unanimous decisions of the Commission. The affidavit itself, the EC said, had also been approved unanimously by all three members.
Explaining its decision-making process, the poll panel said files are ordinarily sent first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals are obtained electronically and subsequently recorded on the file.
It further argued that suggestions, observations or queries made by individual commissioners or officers while a file is being processed do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Election Commission under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The EC said action would be taken against any official found issuing directions beyond their authority.
WORK ALLOCATION ROW REACHED CABINET SECRETARIAT
Earlier, the two Election Commissioners separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, seeking action against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg over a work-allocation order issued a day earlier. They objected to the redistribution of responsibilities within the Election Commission's administrative set-up.
An RTI response subsequently revealed that the Cabinet Secretariat had decided against initiating independent action on the complaints, noting that the communications had been sent by two commissioners individually rather than by the EC as a whole.
Acting on them could be inappropriate and could amount to interference in the functioning of a constitutional body. The letters were acknowledged and copies forwarded to the CEC's office and the Department of Personnel and Training.
The poll panel has now told the Supreme Court that the July 28 work-allocation order was issued by an Additional Secretary-rank officer on deputation and was never implemented following a joint direction issued by the two Election Commissioners on July 30.
- Ends