The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified that voters whose names are missing from draft electoral rolls published during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) can apply for fresh inclusion through Form 6, even if they were registered voters earlier.
The protection is subject to the condition that the applicant is not already enrolled in another parliamentary or assembly constituency and that the declaration is otherwise in accordance with law. In a letter dated November 3 to chief electoral officers of all states and Union Territories (UT), the commission said submitting Form 6 in such cases would not, by itself, amount to a false declaration or invite prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
“It is clarified that an elector whose name does not appear in the draft electoral roll may submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll, in accordance with the prescribed procedure,” the letter said.
The party alleged that the SIR process was designed to exclude voters. They argued that changes to the statutory form required a formal amendment and could not be made unilaterally by the Commission. As reported by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had earlier questioned the insertion of an additional SIR-related declaration into the online Form 6 application. In that case, petitioners who were not first-time voters had argued that submitting Form 6 would require them to make a false declaration. The high court observed that their apprehension was misplaced and closed the proceedings, allowing them to submit Form 6 for consideration in accordance with law. The EC said the declaration in Form 6 had been in force since August 1, 2022, and that applying for inclusion after a name is missing from the draft roll serves the purpose of fresh enrolment under the SIR process.
The Congress on Tuesday dismissed the EC’s clarification as “word games”, arguing that it did not address what the party described as the fundamental flaws of the revision exercise. Sandhu had described the change as “unauthorised/illegal”, while Joshi had raised concerns that the form could not be altered without a legal amendment.
