The Election Commission of India (ECI) has reiterated that it has not made any changes to Form 6, following comments from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during a recent court hearing. Justice Kant stated that the Supreme Court had not given approval for any modified version of Form 6, which led to a response from sources within the EC on the matter.

According to EC sources, the only amendment made involved the addition of a declaration page to the original Form 6. They clarified that this change is consistent with protocols established during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) conducted in Bihar last year, a move which had previously been challenged in the Supreme Court.

In the course of the same hearing, the court remarked on the legitimacy of the protocol, stating that it fell within the constitutional powers granted to the Election Commission. The additional declaration was described by sources as being part of this established protocol.

Legal Perspectives on Alterations to Form 6

Legal experts have raised concerns regarding the procedural integrity of the amendments to Form 6. They emphasised that prior to any alterations, a mandatory consultation process between the government and the Election Commission should have been completed. Furthermore, any modifications or additional provisions would need to be formally notified in the Gazette and presented to Parliament for oversight.

This legal context becomes pertinent following remarks made by the Chief Justice, which prompted the opposition, including prominent leader Rahul Gandhi, to criticise the Election Commission. Gandhi accused the Commission of contradicting its previous statements about the approval status of the declaration associated with Form 6, referencing a press release from last month asserting that the Supreme Court had upheld the new declaration.

The recent developments surrounding Form 6 and the assertions of its modification are grounded in a public interest litigation (PIL) following a report by Indian Express outlining alleged irregularities in the decision-making processes of the Election Commission. The report indicated dissent among two of the three Election Commissioners regarding amendments connected to Form 6.

Concerns Over Voter Registration Changes

The public interest litigation at the centre of the controversy primarily focuses on the alteration of Form 6, which is extensively used by citizens to register as voters in India. The petition argues that the introduction of new requirements—such as providing details of ancestral lineage and linking to the previous SIR—was executed through software updates without adhering to necessary statutory amendments.

According to the submissions made in the plea, the two dissenting Election Commissioners expressed their disagreement with the changes, emphasising that the prescribed form should not be modified without adhering to established statutory procedures. This situation has escalated into a significant legal and political debate regarding the authority of the Election Commission and its decision-making processes.

The petition further requests the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus or similar directive, which would declare any decisions made or guidelines issued under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar—without the full concurrence of the commission or contrary to the views of the majority of Election Commissioners—as unconstitutional and invalid from the outset.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share