Is ECI Correct In Saying Supreme Court Upheld Its New Form 6 Declaration?

After a controversy erupted over two Election Commissioners objecting to the changes made to the Form 6 [which is used to include new voters] during the Special Intensive Revision [SIR] process, the Election Commission of India yesterday issued a press statement seeking to justify its inclusion of a Declaration Form for new voters seeking enrolment via Form 6. 

The ECI said that the Declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Supreme Court in its May judgment pertaining to the Bihar SIR. "The declaration attached to Form 6 has been upheld by the Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per the Rules [the Registration of Electors Rules 1960] will be used," the ECI stated. The suggestion is that the new Form Declaration, which is the subject of present controversy, has been approved by the Supreme Court.

However, this claim may not be entirely correct, as this specific Declaration Form introduced by the ECI was not examined by the Supreme Court in the Bihar SIR case. Let us examine if the Court really "upheld" it.

 What is the Form 6 controversy about?

Under the statutory framework, the 3 principal forms dealing with voter inclusion in the electoral rolls are - Form 6, Form 7 and Form 8. Form 6 deals with inclusion of a new voter in the electoral roll, Form 7 deals with objections to inclusion/deletion of an existing voter and Form 8 deals with correction of an existing voter entry. 

On 24 June 2025, the ECI issued an order notifying SIR in the State of Bihar. Appended to this Order was an 'Annexure D', containing a Declaration Form to be submitted alongwith Form 6/Form 8 for enrolment as a new voter/shifting from outside the state. In terms of this, an applicant was to make declarations as to their age, ordinary residence, and citizenship. Any false declaration attracted penal consequence under Section 31 of the RP Act, with punishment extending upto 1 year. 

In May this year, after hearing a batch of petitions challenging Bihar SIR, particularly the ECI's prescription of 11 documents for establishing voter eligibility, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR.

Addressing the petitioners' contention that the the ECI cannot seek a Declaration which is not specified by the Rules, the Court held that during the SIR exercise, the ECI is not strictly bound by Form 6 alone, and has the residual authority to tailor the documentation framework to suit a particular SIR exercise. But it also observed that in devising a framework, ECI must keep in mind the statutory scheme and any changes must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 

In July, as per a report of The Indian Express, the ECI made changes to the Form 6 Declaration which was used in the earlier SIR process for other states. As per the new Declaration, the applicants had to state if they or their parents/relatives were included in the last SIR. This was at variance with the statutory Form 6, as well as the Declaration which was used in the Bihar SIR. Apparently, the Form 6 available for filling online incorporated the Declaration as part of the Form. Though not marked mandatory, an applicant could not proceed with the submission of the Form without filling the Declaration. 

Last week, The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi) had recorded their objections to the Form 6 Declaration change on the ground that unless the Rules are amended by the Central Government, the modifications cannot be made. Notably, the TIE report also quoted EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as having called the Form 6 change "unauthorized and illegal" on August 13. 

What new Declaration Form appended to Form 6 entails?

Aside from basic details of the applicant (like name, mobile number, address, citizenship status), the Declaration seeks details of the applicant/their relative as per last SIR. While details of the applicant as per last SIR are to be provided only if applicable, providing last SIR details of a relative does not seem optional. These details include name, EPIC Number (if available), relative's name, relationship, district, state, assembly constituency name, assembly constituency number, part number and serial number. 

Pertinently, the Booth Level Officers are supposed to sign and undertake on the Declaration that they have verified the given details from the last SIR rolls. ECI further states that EROs will issue notices to applicant's whose last SIR details as provided in the Declaration are unavailable or do not match the database. 

As per ECI guidelines for filling up Form 6, any false statement in the Declaration portion has also been given the character of an offense under the RP Act and may attract a prison sentence of upto 1 year (or fine, or both). Therefore any error in providing details of relative's enrolment in previous SIR may attract penal consequences.

These guidelines, appended to Form 6, state:

"*DECLARATION: All entries in “DECLARATION” portion should be completed in all respects. Please note that giving any false statement made in the DECLARATION portion is a punishable offence under Section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 with imprisonment with a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both."

Bihar SIR judgment: What the Supreme Court said on Form 6

The Bihar SIR judgment upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIR and the broad SIR framework. While observing that the documentation framework for Form 6 need not be "literally" applied to an SIR exercise, the Court recognized a degree of residual authority with the ECI, enabling it to formulate a documentation framework suited to a particular SIR.

The Court noted: "It is true that Form 6, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, sets out a framework of documentation; however, the same is tailored to the process of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) of the RP Act and may not, in all situations, be capable of literal application to an exercise of the present nature. The Commission, therefore, retains a degree of residual authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a Special Intensive Revision."

However, at the same time, the Court emphasized that such residual authority of ECI is not "unbound". Any deviations by the ECI from the statutorily prescribed framework must have a "rational nexus" to the object sought to be achieved. 

"Such authority, however, is not unbounded. In devising such a framework, the Commission must remain cognisant of the existing statutory scheme, and any departure therefrom must be informed by a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The formulation of the documentation regime must thus reflect a calibrated balance in drawing from the statutory framework, while adapting it, where necessary, to effectively serve the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll", the Court said. 

Thus, while the Court recognized the ECI's power to prescribe additional documents beyond Form 6, it held that the existing Rules have to guide the process, and that deviations must be explained by showing a rational nexus with the purpose.

It is worthwhile to note that the ECI's stand before the Court in this matter was that its documentation framework (which did not contain the subject Declaration Form then) was more "expansive" and "facilitative" compared to earlier exercises. ECI now calling on electors to trace and furnish details of their parents/grandparents based on electoral rolls about 25-years old seems counter-intuitive. 

Questions on ECI claim that SC upheld the Declaration Form

The ECI claims that the Declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR was "upheld" by the Supreme Court, but it conveniently ignores the fact that the Declaration was different from the Declaration Form reportedly introduced in July and circulating now.  

What the Supreme Court approved of was the Declaration contained in Annexure D of the ECI order of June, 2025 notifying Bihar SIR. The present Declaration is different insofar as it requires an applicant-elector to give details of their relative's enrolment in last SIR. 

The petitioners challenging SIR before the Supreme Court have flagged apprehensions about electors being asked to provide such technical details, highlighting that some people do not even know what 'Part Number' is.

Following the introduction of the new Declaration, ECI would now stand to answer how linkage of an elector's enrolment in the current SIR exercise to a relative's enrolment during previous SIR satisfies the rational nexus test. Since the Supreme Court held that SIR satisfied the proportionality test, the Commission may also have to justify hindrances in voter enrolment on account of failure to link an elector to their relative's enrolment in previous SIR.

Apart from rational nexus test, the ECI action may as well be put through a reasonable differentia test for picking July as the time for introducing the new Declaration, while voters in 13 States/UTs underwent the SIR exercise without the cumbersome requirement of furnishing previous SIR details of relatives.