Context: The Election Commission of India (ECI) faces criticism over alleged partisan conduct, changes to Form 6, mass deletion requests through Form 7, and technological restrictions affecting electoral officials during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
- Disagreements among Election Commissioners, judicial observations and complaints by electoral officials have intensified concerns about the ECI’s institutional independence, transparency and credibility.
Concerns Regarding the ECI’s Functioning
- Alleged selective enforcement: The ECI has faced criticism over its handling of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) violations during the 2019 and 2024 general elections, including alleged discriminatory treatment of Opposition parties and inconsistent action against prominent campaigners.
- Transparency concerns: In December 2024, rules governing access to election-related documents were changed following a Punjab and Haryana High Court order for disclosure, enabling the ECI to withhold certain voting video footage recorded after scheduled polling hours.
- Treatment of stakeholders: The ECI has been criticised for dismissing complaints from civil society organisations and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) regarding electoral roll irregularities, including demanding an affidavit substantiating allegations or an apology.
- Appointment-related concerns: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, changed the selection mechanism, raising concerns about government influence over appointments.
- Perceived political alignment: The ruling party’s repeated public defence of the ECI has fuelled perceptions of political alignment.
Controversy over Form 6 and the SIR
What is Form 6?
- Purpose: Form 6, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, is used to apply for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, including by first-time voters and eligible persons shifting from one constituency to another.
- Mandatory declarations: Applicants provide identity, date of birth, ordinary residence and citizenship-related particulars; declare that they have not registered in another constituency; and furnish previous registration details where applicable.
- Legal accountability: Applicants attest to the accuracy of their information and acknowledge that furnishing false information is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Why is the Modified Form 6 Controversial?
- Additional declaration: The ECI’s notification dated June 24, 2025, introducing the SIR, attached a Declaration Form (Annexure D) to Form 6 or Form 8, requiring applicants to be classified by date of birth and submit documents to establish eligibility under specified citizenship-related criteria.
- Alleged lack of authority: Election Commissioners reportedly termed these changes “illegal and unauthorised”, arguing that the ECI could not unilaterally alter prescribed statutory rules and forms.
- Legal basis: Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, empowers the Central Government to make rules for implementing the Act; the ECI cannot independently amend statutory rules beyond its legal authority.
- NRC concerns: Critics suspect that the additional declaration could create a quasi-National Register of Citizens (NRC) by linking electoral registration with detailed citizenship verification, although electoral eligibility is governed by the Constitution and election laws.
- ECI’s clarification: On September 26, the ECI stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court, while ordinary forms prescribed under the Rules would be used outside the SIR period.
- Judicial observation: The Chief Justice of India subsequently observed that no modified Form 6 had been approved by the Court, raising questions about the scope of the ECI’s claim regarding judicial approval.
Subsequent Corrective Measures
- ECI letter dated October 1, 2026: The ECI directed Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) to facilitate enrolment applications from eligible persons who were not enrolled or whose names had been deleted.
- Identification of excluded electors: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were instructed to compare current electoral rolls with pre-SIR rolls, identify omitted electors, conduct house-to-house visits to verify their status, and facilitate enrolment through Form 6 wherever eligible.
- Two versions of Form 6: Form 6 with the additional declaration continues in States where the SIR is ongoing, while the prescribed form without the declaration is used where the exercise has been completed.
- Constitutional concern: Article 326 provides for adult suffrage, subject to constitutional qualifications and disqualifications; the central issue is whether additional documentary requirements exceed the legally prescribed conditions for electoral registration.
Alleged Misuse of Form 7
- Purpose: Form 7 is used to object to the inclusion of a name in an electoral roll or seek deletion of an existing entry on legally recognised grounds.
- Mass deletion attempts: Bulk Form 7 applications in Uttarakhand, Karnataka and other States have raised concerns about attempts to remove eligible electors through frivolous, fraudulent or unauthorised objections.
- Accountability concerns: The ECI has been criticised for allegedly failing to act effectively against frivolous applicants or initiate criminal proceedings where applications were found to be fake.
- Unresolved objections: More than 16 lakh objections were reportedly filed against electors whose names had been included after due process, raising questions about the identity of objectors and authenticity of objections.
Technological and Administrative Concerns
- Centralised data management: Complaints from BLOs and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) suggest that the ECI’s centralised system restricted authorised officials from implementing their decisions while allegedly allowing unauthorised persons to act on their behalf.
- ECINet access restrictions: Changes to Form 6 and denial of ECINet access to certain EROs were alleged to obstruct the discharge of their statutory responsibilities.
- Judicial concerns in West Bengal: Eleven judges heading Appellate Tribunals reportedly stated that technical problems impeded their work during the SIR.
- Maharashtra’s concerns: The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra highlighted shortcomings that prevented EROs from exercising their legally mandated discretion and making decisions based on their satisfaction.
- Complaints from other States: Emails from EROs in Goa and complaints from BLOs and EROs in West Bengal point to wider concerns about the reliability, accessibility and accountability of the centralised electoral data-management system.
Constitutional and Institutional Significance
- Constitutional mandate: Article 324 vests the ECI with the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.
- Electoral roll integrity: Articles 325 and 326 provide the constitutional framework for non-discriminatory electoral rolls and elections based on adult suffrage, subject to constitutional provisions.
- Role of electoral officials: EROs are responsible for preparing and revising electoral rolls under election laws; technological systems must facilitate, rather than override, their lawful decision-making authority.
- Democratic legitimacy: Public confidence in impartial election administration is essential because electoral integrity depends not only on accurate voting but also on fair voter registration, transparent procedures and effective grievance redressal.
