Is the Election Commission of India (ECI) at sixes and sevens, idiomatically and otherwise? Will Form 6 be its undoing, and has Form 7 caused it unmanageable discomfiture? The barbs associated with these forms have further damaged the image of the beleaguered constitutional body entrusted with safeguarding the constitutional right to vote of “we, the people”.
Disturbing conduct
Never before has the ECI been so severely berated, becoming the object of unprecedented public outcry, adverse media attention and social scrutiny as in recent times. It took the ECI years of toil and transparency to earn public trust; it has taken the temperament of a few individuals to erode it through their disregard for the concerns, genuine or imagined, of those who had earlier sworn by the very same institution.
The institution that was built brick by brick seems to be crumbling in a similar manner. Its record presents a disturbing pattern: a lax, and sometimes overtly partial, approach to alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during the 2019 general election; discriminatory treatment of Opposition parties; the hurried change, in December 2024, to the rules governing the sharing of documents, following an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for full disclosure, permitting the ECI to withhold video footage of voting after scheduled polling hours; the issuance of notices to political parties over alleged MCC violations by their leaders during the 2024 general election; the so-called ‘fair and equal’ treatment of the main political parties by exonerating their star campaigners of MCC violations; the contempt with which civil society organisations have been treated; the cavalier dismissal of complaints by the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha about flaws in electoral rolls (ERs); the uncharacteristic bombast of asking the LoP to submit an affidavit substantiating his complaints or apologise to the nation; and the abrupt imposition, in June 2025, of the aggressive, ambitious and most unnecessary exercise of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on nearly a billion electors. This is a deeply disturbing but consistent narrative of institutional decline and growing deformities (pun unintended).
As if the ECI’s own actions were not enough to erode its credibility, a ‘friendly’ government further undermined it by legislating in December 2023 a selection procedure that prejudiced the credibility of the Commissioners ab initio. Moreover, the ruling party repeatedly rushed to the ECI’s rescue whenever it came under attack, as though it were a weak ally incapable of defending itself.
In the latest public mud fight, the ECI is under attack not merely for allegedly favouring the ruling party through its controversial decisions, but also for committing “illegalities” alleged not by its critics but by fellow Election Commissioners (ECs). These relate to changes to Form 6 and the denial of access to ECINet for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), allegedly obstructing them from performing their statutory duties.
There have also been complaints of rampant misuse of Form 7 by unidentified objectors seeking the mass deletion of electors whose names were duly included in the electoral rolls (ERs).
Form 6 attached to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (the Rules), is an “application for inclusion of name in the electoral roll (ER) for a first-time voter or on shifting from one constituency to another”. It requires applicants to provide mandatory particulars relating to their identity, date of birth and ordinary residence, along with declarations regarding citizenship and place of birth. They must also declare that they have not applied for inclusion of their name in the ER of any other constituency and, in the case of a shift, provide details of their previous registration. Applicants must attest to the veracity of the information furnished and acknowledge that they are aware that providing false information is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (the Act). Nothing further is required to establish their eligibility.
A declaration beyond the rules
However, the ECI’s notification of June 24, 2025, announcing the SIR, included a Declaration Form (Annexure D) to be filled in along with Form 6 or Form 8, as in paragraphs 4 and 15 of the notification. The declaration classified applicants according to their dates of birth, aligning them with the provisions of the Citizenship Act and requiring them to submit documents to establish their eligibility accordingly. This appears to go beyond what is prescribed under the Rules. This is why the ECs termed the changes to Form 6 “illegal and unauthorised”, while many suspected that the SIR was an attempt to introduce a “National Register of Citizens (NRC) through the back door”.
Section 28 of the Act empowers only the central government to make “rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act”. Even if the ECI unanimously decided to change Form 6, it was not competent to amend it unilaterally. In its press note of September 26, the ECI acknowledged that a “declaration” had been “attached to Form 6 for SIR”, which was “upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”, and that “for non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules will be used”.
The Chief Justice of India has since observed, “No modified Form 6 has been approved by us.” In its letter dated October 1, 2026, to all Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs), the ECI stated that “any person not yet enrolled in the ER or whose name has got deleted can apply for enrolment at any point of time”. It also asked Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to “compare the current electoral roll with the pre-SIR electoral roll and identify such electors whose names were there in the pre-SIR roll but who are not included in the current electoral roll and prepare a list of such electors”. The BLOs were further instructed to undertake house-to-house (H2H) visits to ascertain the present status of these electors and facilitate their enrolment through Form 6 wherever they were found eligible.
While Form 6 with the Declaration will continue to be used in States where the SIR is ongoing, it will be used without the Declaration in States where the SIR has been completed. What has the ECI achieved through these changes, and what is its intent in using two versions of Form 6? Its continued use in States undergoing the SIR suggests an attempt to align an elector’s citizenship status with the criteria laid down in the Citizenship Act. The information sought in the Declaration has little to do with an elector’s eligibility under Article 326. Does this not amount to the ECI attempting to create a quasi-NRC?
Wider concerns
The issues pertaining to the manner in which the bulk applications to delete existing voters using Form 7 are being submitted in Uttarakhand, Karnataka and other States are equally serious, as they point to efforts to misuse or manipulate the system. By failing to take effective action against those who filed frivolous Form 7 applications, or to initiate criminal proceedings where applications were found to be fake, the ECI is being perceived as lax in safeguarding the integrity of its processes. The centralisation of data by the ECI has further fuelled concerns about the possibility of manipulation. Complaints from BLOs and EROs in West Bengal during the SIR, as well as emails sent by EROs in Goa, point to a centralised data-management system that allegedly obstructed authorised officers from implementing their decisions while allowing others without authorisation to act on their behalf.
Eleven judges heading the Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal pointed out that the technical system impeded their work. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra also highlighted several shortcomings that prevented EROs from exercising their legally mandated judgement, based on their satisfaction, because the system disallowed it. The larger question that remains unanswered, despite several press notes issued by the ECI after it was engulfed by The Indian Express’s September 23 revelations, is: who filed the more than 16 lakh objections against electors whose names had been validly included after due process? This raises concerns similar to those surrounding the alleged misuse of Form 7.
The ECI’s answers confirm earlier doubts, while its actions raise new and far more serious questions.
Ashok Lavasa is a former Election Commissioner of India and a former Union Finance Secretary