Supreme Court Questions Form 6 Changes as Election Commission Restores Enrolment

Form 6 is normally used to register new voters. During the special intensive revision, or SIR, it was also used to re-enlist people deleted during the enumeration phase, according to The Hindu.

The dispute centres on an additional declaration attached to the form. It sought details about applicants' parents or grandparents, India News reported. The outlet said two election commissioners had flagged concerns before the Election Commission restored the standard form in states outside SIR.

On September 29, The Hindu reported that the commission had reverted to allowing Form 6 submissions without the attached declaration in non-SIR states. That rollback concerned the extra declaration, rather than an end to voter registration through Form 6.

On September 30, the commission extended SIR deadlines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya. The meeting was attended by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, according to NDTV India.

The commission also ordered a special drive to enrol eligible voters left out after SIR, alongside first-time and young voters. Mint reported on October 2 that the instruction had been issued in writing on September 29 and repeated at a video conference with state Chief Electoral Officers. The drive covered 20 states where SIR had finished, according to Indian Express.

The scope of that exercise soon became clearer. On October 2, The Hindu reported that West Bengal cases pending before appellate tribunals would not be included. On October 3, Scroll.in reported instructions for Booth Level Officers to revisit voter lists and help restore eligible deleted voters through Form 6.

On October 5, the controversy reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Surya Kant verbally observed that the court had not approved changes to Form 6, according to Scroll.in. The court declined to suspend Kumar and sought a response on the poll body's decisions, Mint reported.

The court's statement does not settle the wider dispute over what the commission changed or how those decisions were taken. India Today reported that Election Commission sources said they had not changed a comma, while Mint reported the bench's statement that the modified Form 6 had not been approved by the court. Those accounts leave a disputed distinction between the form and the additional declaration.

There is also disagreement over using a new voter registration form to restore deleted voters. Times of India Top Stories reported that a former Chief Election Commissioner challenged that route and that the commission cited rules in response. Former CEC S Y Quraishi's position was captured in Indian Express: a deleted voter is not a new voter.

Congress has escalated its criticism. It alleged that Kumar changed the form illegally and unilaterally, according to The Hindu. Those are the party's allegations, not findings by the Supreme Court.

The next legal step is the response sought by the Supreme Court over disputed electoral roll decisions. Swarajya reported that the court sought responses over 14 decisions while refusing an interim suspension of Kumar.

The enrolment drive also has a concrete next date: October 15 in Keralam. Booth Level Officers will compare the pre-SIR and post-SIR lists and enrol those left out as new voters, according to The Hindu. Separately, the exclusion of West Bengal cases pending before appellate tribunals leaves those cases on a different route.