NEW DELHI, Sept. 30
The Election Commission of India has removed an additional declaration linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls from the online Form 6 in states and Union Territories where the exercise has been completed, following controversy over whether the statutory voter-registration form could be altered without amending electoral rules.
The separate declaration will continue to be used in states and Union Territories where the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, remains underway.
The change follows a September 26 decision by the Election Commission clarifying that the additional declaration would apply during an SIR, while the statutory Form 6 would be used during periods when no such revision exercise was in progress.
Form 6 is the prescribed application through which eligible Indian citizens seek inclusion in the electoral roll as new voters. It is provided for under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The dispute arose after an additional SIR-related section appeared in the online version of Form 6 on the ECINET portal.
The declaration asked applicants whether their name, or that of a parent or grandparent, had appeared in the electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR. Depending on their response, applicants could also be required to provide details including the state, district, Assembly constituency, polling booth, part number and serial number.
Although the section was not identified as mandatory, applicants reportedly could not complete the online registration process without responding to it.
At the same time, the downloadable Form 6 available on the Election Commission’s website did not contain the additional declaration, creating a difference between the statutory document and the online registration process.
The issue acquired greater significance after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected internally to attaching the SIR declaration to Form 6.
Their objections centred on the statutory status of Form 6.
Since the form is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, the commissioners questioned whether its requirements could be changed administratively without first amending the underlying rules.
Joshi was reported to have taken the position that Form 6 could not be changed unless the central government amended the relevant rules.
Sandhu went further, describing the modification as “unauthorised and illegal” and saying that it “must be removed immediately”.
The Election Commission maintained that it had not amended Form 6 itself. Its position was that the declaration constituted an additional requirement associated specifically with the SIR rather than a modification of the statutory form.
The ECINET portal now lists the statutory Form 6 separately from the SIR-related Declaration Form.
The distinction means that applicants in areas where the intensive revision has concluded can use the regular Form 6 without answering additional questions about whether they or members of their family appeared in electoral rolls prepared during an earlier SIR.
Where an SIR remains underway, the separate declaration continues to apply.
The declaration also carries legal consequences for false information. Applicants are warned that making a false statement can attract action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, including imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The controversy developed against the background of the SIR undertaken in Bihar.
The Election Commission ordered a Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls on June 24, 2025, as part of an exercise to verify voter eligibility and update the rolls.
The Bihar process used a separate declaration known as Annexure D rather than the declaration subsequently associated with the online Form 6.
The legality of the Bihar exercise reached the Supreme Court, which delivered its judgment on May 27, 2026.
The court upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the SIR and considered the documentation framework used during the exercise.
In examining the relationship between the statutory Form 6 and an intensive revision, the Supreme Court said the form could not necessarily be applied literally to an SIR because it had been designed for a particular form of electoral roll revision under the Representation of the People Act.
The court recognised that the Election Commission possessed a degree of residual authority to create a documentation framework appropriate to an intensive revision.
It also placed limits on that authority, saying it was “not unbounded” and that departures from the statutory framework must have a rational connection with the objective of the SIR.
The Election Commission has cited the judgment in defending the use of an additional declaration during an intensive revision.
The latest change therefore does not amount to the Election Commission abandoning the declaration altogether. Instead, it separates the SIR documentation requirement from the ordinary process for registering a new voter.
For applicants in states and Union Territories where the revision exercise has finished, the practical effect is straightforward. New voters will use the statutory Form 6 without having to provide the additional information concerning their own or their parents’ or grandparents’ presence in an earlier SIR electoral roll.
Applicants in areas still undergoing an SIR will continue to encounter the additional declaration as part of the revision process.
The change also addresses the distinction at the centre of the earlier dispute: whether additional requirements created specifically for an intensive electoral roll revision should form part of the statutory Form 6 used for ordinary voter enrolment.
Under the revised arrangement on the ECINET portal, the two are now presented separately, leaving Form 6 unchanged while retaining the additional declaration where an SIR is still in progress.
