Poll panel fixes Form 6, deletes ‘illegal’ SIR para

Why in the News

The online voter enrolment form, Form 6, has gone from carrying a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration back to its plain statutory version, with the declaration now a separate form. The Election Commission of India (ECI) made the change on its ECINet portal after two Election Commissioners objected that the change was illegal. The episode tests whether the Commission acts as one body.

What is Form 6, and why was the SIR declaration a problem?

1. Form 6: The application a new voter fills to join the roll. It is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, so only the Central Government can amend it.
2. SIR declaration: It asked whether the applicant, a parent or grandparent, or none was on the last SIR roll of the early 2000s. Anyone not answering was blocked.
3. ECI’s reason: Placing the declaration inside Form 6 needed one one-time password (OTP) and one e-signature, not two.
4. The takeaway: A software convenience changed a legal form in effect, skipping the Central Government amendment the law requires.

How did the Commission’s position on Form 6 change?

1. Objections on record: One Election Commissioner recorded on May 16 that the form needed a legal amendment, and the other concurred. The question appeared online anyway in July.
2. “Unauthorised/illegal”: In August, the second Commissioner called the change “unauthorised/illegal” and sought its immediate removal.
3. Confined to SIR States: After the full Commission met in late September, the declaration stayed only where the SIR was still running, such as Delhi and Maharashtra.
4. Supreme Court’s stand: On October 12, the Court said it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6.
5. Separate declaration: On October 21, the ECI’s Electoral Roll Division made the declaration a separate document, its third position in six weeks.

Can a Commissioner’s objection bind the Commission?

1. Form never amended: The ECI’s counter-affidavit, its sworn reply in the Supreme Court, maintains Form 6 was never amended. It concedes the online display “could be construed” as one.
2. Notes are not decisions: The affidavit says a Commissioner’s note “does not constitute a decision of the Election Commission under Section 18”, the Act’s decision-making clause.
3. Unanswered dissent: The two Commissioners objected in 14 notes over 10 months. Five reached the Chief Election Commissioner without any reply on record.
4. No full meetings: The full Commission did not meet even once between May and August.

What else has the Commission reversed?

1. Meetings, travel and IT: Commission meetings now carry agendas and minutes. Officers’ foreign trips and new information technology (IT) modules need Commission approval.
2. ECINet audit: An October committee, including experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), will check ECINet’s legal compliance.
3. Field officer discretion: Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are legally responsible for each roll, now decide logical-discrepancy cases themselves.
4. Goa’s deleted voters: ECINet had no option to undo the deletion of 97 Goa voters cleared by local officers. 88 have since been accepted afresh.
5. New enrolment drive: A Special Summary Revision in 17 States and Union Territories, mainly for new voters, needs no SIR declaration.

Challenges

1. No meeting rule: No published rule requires the full Commission to meet or to answer a member’s note.
2. Centralised control: The ECI’s IT division in Delhi controls roll access, but the law places roll responsibility on field officers.
3. Undisclosed appeals: The affidavit does not disclose how many West Bengal appeals target voters whom judicial officers ordered onto the roll.

Way Forward

1. Amend through the Rules: Route any Form 6 change through a Central Government amendment of the Rules.
2. Written replies: Answer every member’s note in writing and record it in the minutes.
3. Publish the audit: Release the ECINet audit findings.
4. Restore ERO control: Align ECINet options, including rollback, with the powers the Rules give EROs.

Conclusion

The Form 6 fix completes a reversal, yet the Commission still holds in court that nothing was decided wrongly. Unresolved is whether a multi-member Commission can treat its members’ recorded objections as mere notes.

Back2Basics: Section 18 of the Election Commissioners Act, 2023

1. The Act: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
2. Section 18: Business is transacted unanimously as far as possible; where members differ, the majority view prevails.
3. Equal members: T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) held that members are equal and the Chief Election Commissioner is first among equals.

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?”