At sixes and sevens, the ECI’s growing credibility crisis

Why in the News

Trust in the Election Commission of India (ECI), built over years, is eroding amid unprecedented outcry. The latest charge of “illegalities” comes from its own Election Commissioners (ECs). They called changes to Form 6 “illegal and unauthorised” and objected to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) being denied access to ECINet, the ECI’s digital platform.

What is Form 6, and why is its new Declaration contested?

1. What it is: Form 6 is the application to join the electoral roll, the voter list. Like an admission form, it asks only identity, age, residence and citizenship, and Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) punishes false answers.
2. The Declaration: The notification for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a door to door re-check of every elector, added a Declaration (Annexure D) to Form 6. It sorts applicants by date of birth, as the Citizenship Act, 1955 does, and demands matching documents.
3. The objection: Critics call it a “National Register of Citizens (NRC) through the back door”, a citizenship check slipped into enrolment. It exceeds the adult citizenship test of Article 326, making it a quasi-NRC.
4. The takeaway: A form meant only to enrol eligible adults now carries a citizenship screen, which the ECI’s own members question.

Can the ECI change Form 6 on its own?

1. Rule making power: Section 28 of the RP Act lets only the Central government make rules, including the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 containing Form 6. So the ECI cannot amend it alone.
2. ECI’s defence: Its September 26 press note said the declaration “attached to Form 6 for SIR” was “upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.
3. Court’s view: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has since observed, “No modified Form 6 has been approved by us.”
4. Two versions of Form 6: An October 1 ECI letter keeps the Declaration where the SIR is ongoing and drops it where it is over. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must trace and re-enrol electors the SIR dropped.

What record has eroded trust in the ECI?

1. Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The ECI enforced this campaign rulebook laxly and sometimes with bias in 2019. In 2024 it sent notices to parties but spared star campaigners.
2. Disclosure curbs: After a Punjab and Haryana High Court order for full disclosure, election document rules were hurriedly changed in December 2024 to let the ECI withhold post poll video footage.
3. Opposition complaints: The ECI brushed aside the Leader of the Opposition (LoP)‘s complaints on roll flaws, demanding an affidavit or an apology.
4. Abrupt SIR: The ECI imposed the SIR in June 2025 on nearly a billion electors.
5. Selection law: A December 2023 law on selecting the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and ECs had already damaged their credibility.

Why do Form 7 and centralised data deepen the doubts?

1. Form 7 misuse: Unidentified objectors filed Form 7, the form to object to a name on the roll, in bulk in Uttarakhand, Karnataka and elsewhere. The ECI has not acted against fake filers.
2. Centralised data: Officers in West Bengal, Goa and Maharashtra say a central system blocked them and overrode their legally mandated judgement.
3. Unanswered question: The ECI has not said who filed the more than 16 lakh objections against validly enrolled electors.

Challenges

1. Citizenship screening by a poll body: Authorities under the Citizenship Act, not electoral officers, decide citizenship.
2. Weak tenure of ECs: ECs can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation, so internal dissent carries personal risk.
3. Toothless MCC: The MCC lacks statutory backing, so the ECI relies on moral suasion.

Way Forward

1. Rules through the Centre: Amend Form 6 only through Central rules under Section 28.
2. Penalise bulk objectors: Prosecute fake Form 7 filers under Section 31 and name mass objectors.
3. Equal tenure protection: Give ECs the CEC’s removal protection, as the Tarkunde (1975) and Goswami (1990) Committees suggested.

Conclusion

The ECI’s credibility now rests less on running polls than on staying within the law on who may vote. Whether the Supreme Court tests the Declaration against the Rules, and whether the Commission resolves its dissent openly, is what to watch.

About the Election Commission of India

1. Constitutional basis: Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections. Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) held it may act where the law is silent.
2. Appointments: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed a panel of the Prime Minister, LoP and CJI until Parliament legislated. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”