ECI’s Additional Declaration Not Part of Form 6
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended its decision to introduce an additional declaration form along with Form 6, which is used for voter registration. The new declaration asks people whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process to provide details of their previous voter registration or the electoral records of their family members. The Election Commission refers to this process as “mapping,” which is intended to help verify voter details.
The issue has reached the Supreme Court of India, where petitioners have challenged the Election Commission’s decision to introduce the additional declaration. They argue that Form 6 is an official document governed by election laws and that the Election Commission cannot change its requirements without proper legal authority. According to the petitioners, only the central government has the power to amend the statutory form, and the commission’s decision may go beyond its legal powers.
Responding to these concerns, the Election Commission has stated that it has not changed Form 6 itself. Instead, it has introduced a separate declaration that must be submitted along with the existing form in certain cases. The commission maintains that the additional document is intended to support the voter verification process rather than replace or legally amend Form 6.
The ECI has also explained that the additional declaration was introduced to make online voter verification easier. Under this arrangement, applicants can provide the required information in one document instead of uploading several separate files. The commission believes this approach can simplify the submission process and help officials check voter records more efficiently.
The mapping process is particularly important for people whose names were removed from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision. By asking applicants to provide information about their previous voter registration or their family members’ electoral records, officials aim to establish a connection with existing voter records. This information may help them verify the applicant’s details before taking further action on the registration request.
However, the petitioners have raised concerns about whether such additional requirements are legally permitted. They argue that introducing new conditions alongside a statutory form could create difficulties for eligible citizens who want to register as voters. The case therefore raises questions about the Election Commission’s authority to introduce additional documentation and the legal limits of its powers.
During a recent hearing, the Supreme Court referred to the “new Form 6” while discussing the matter. However, the court made it clear that it had neither approved nor rejected the changes. Instead, it agreed to examine the issue separately, leaving the legal questions open for further consideration.
The case highlights the importance of balancing efficient voter verification with the legal rights of citizens. While accurate electoral rolls are essential for conducting fair elections, registration procedures must also follow the law and remain accessible to eligible voters.
The Supreme Court’s examination of the issue could help clarify the Election Commission’s authority to introduce additional declarations during voter registration. Until the matter is decided, the legal validity of the challenged arrangement remains a question for the court to consider.