New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has not changed Form 6, the mandatory document for first-time voters. In an affidavit responding to petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the poll body said a separate declaration form was introduced under the SIR exercise.
The declaration requires applicants to link their details with previous electoral rolls of themselves, their parents or grandparents.
“On a review of the manner in which Form 6 and the Declaration were displayed on the IT platform, some concerns arose for the reason that the manner in which the Declaration was presented in the online system was such that it could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made,” the ECI stated.
It added that only the central government can change Form 6’s format.
According to the affidavit, the declaration was amended to introduce “mapping”, allowing applicants to provide details from the 2002/2003 electoral rolls. Successfully mapped applicants would not need to submit further documents during the claims and objections period.
The ECI clarified that the declaration is a separate document required alongside Form 6 for inclusion in the electoral roll during the SIR exercise.
The poll body said the mechanism was intended to assist voters and expedite the completion of the revision process.
The petitions against Kumar and the SIR exercise, launched to eliminate duplicate voters, followed an Indian Express report claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the exercise. The report also alleged that they had objected to changes in Form 6.
The ECI maintained that all decisions regarding SIR were unanimous, explaining that files pass through both Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner for approval.
The Commission also argued that the petitions relied on a single newspaper report, stating, “In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates.”
It further said the petition seeking Kumar’s removal was not maintainable, as the CEC can only be removed through a process similar to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
