A major controversy has emerged over modifications made to ECINet, the online version of Form 6 used by the Election Commission to enrol new voters.
The issue gained momentum after reports highlighted objections and differences between two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The changes have subsequently been described as “illegal” and “unauthorised.”
The primary concerns centre on alterations to Form 6, which applicants use to have their names added to electoral rolls. A new declaration related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was introduced in the Form 6 available through the portal.
Under the revised format, first-time voters and other new applicants were asked three questions concerning whether their parents or grandparents appeared in earlier electoral rolls. Applicants were required to choose from the options provided.
The first question asked whether the applicant's own name had appeared in the electoral roll during the SIR carried out in the early 2000s.
The second asked whether the names of the applicant's parents or grandparents were included in that older electoral roll.
The third dealt with the situation in which neither the applicant nor their parents were listed in the earlier roll.
While the declaration was labelled “Non-Mandatory”, applicants could not complete the online submission without responding to it.
Both Election Commissioners reportedly raised several legal concerns and objected to the modifications. Former Chief Election Commissioner OP Rawat and former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa also backed these concerns.
The objections, both legal and practical, described the changes as a breach of the prescribed procedure and an unauthorised modification.
The Election Commissioners pointed out that Form 6 is a statutory document prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Any amendment to the form or the rules requires a notification from the Ministry of Law followed by a formal amendment. According to the objections, the Election Commission cannot independently modify the statutory form through an order or guideline.
In his dissent note, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu cautioned that inserting incomplete and unauthorised declarations could cause problems for young and first-time voters and could potentially result in them being denied their voting rights.
Former CEC OP Rawat similarly said that the SIR exercise had generated fear among voters, which he described as unfortunate for a democracy.
The changes could have consequences for new voters whose families were excluded from electoral rolls or whose names were removed during the 2002 revision. Such exclusions could potentially create difficulties extending across generations.
The Election Commissioners also raised concerns about the management of the country's digital electoral databases, ECINet and ERONet, being centralised at the Election Commission's Delhi headquarters.
They argued that this arrangement was restricting ground-level officials, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), from having adequate access and autonomy to perform their responsibilities.
According to reports, the two Election Commissioners have recorded at least 14 written objections concerning the matter over the past 10 months.
The Election Commission, however, has dismissed reports of internal divisions. It said that differences of opinion, internal comments and suggestions are a normal feature of a multi-member institution. The Commission also maintained that all decisions concerning electoral revisions had been taken unanimously.
Political parties have also criticised the changes to Form 6.
The Congress said that after the developments came to light, the Chief Election Commissioner should resign immediately and had no justification for continuing in office even for another second.
The party alleged that the BJP had established an office for the “murder of democracy” and accused the government of pursuing a “double-bulldozer.”
The Congress also criticised what it called the Chief Election Commissioner's dictatorial approach, alleging that he had effectively held the constitutional institution hostage.
A Congress spokesperson, referring to a Supreme Court ruling, said the Chief Election Commissioner was not the ultimate authority within the Commission but was instead “first among equals”.
Congress MP and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said dissent was essential for protecting democracy and argued that disagreement should not be treated as an obstruction. He also praised the dissent expressed by the two Election Commissioners.
Singhvi called for greater transparency and demanded that all written dissent notes be released publicly. He said this was necessary to establish accountability.
According to Singhvi, the developments reflected what he described as the ruling party's determination to win elections through “saam-daam-dand-bhed” — using every possible means.
He also alleged that the BJP wanted the Opposition to disappear wherever it had secured electoral victories. Singhvi said it would be an unprecedented situation if the “formal Opposition” in West Bengal were supporting the government.
Referring to what he described as large-scale deletions from electoral rolls, Singhvi claimed that 7.8 crore voters, equivalent to 13 per cent of the previous electoral roll, had been removed during the first two phases of the SIR. He said that in the next phase, underway across 16 states and three Union Territories, another 6.18 crore names had been removed, representing 17 per cent.
He further claimed that 5.43 crore voters had been classified as doubtful and issued notices requiring them to submit additional documents. Singhvi expressed concern that the number of deleted names could eventually rise to 15 crore after the SIR exercise is completed.
