Back
Supreme Court Didn't Uphold New Form 6 Declaration, Legal Experts Contradict ECI Claim
The ’s assertion that the upheld its controversial new Form 6 Declaration has come under fire from legal experts, who argue the Court’s judgment on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) did not endorse the specific requirement that applicants link themselves to a relative’s previous SIR enrolment.
In a press statement on , the ECI claimed the Declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been “upheld” by the . But a close reading of the judgment reveals a far more nuanced holding—one that recognizes the Commission’s to tailor documentation but imposes a critical “ ” safeguard that the new Declaration may fail to meet.
Background: A Clash Over Voter Registration
The controversy centers on an amended Declaration Form introduced by the ECI in , during the ongoing SIR process across multiple states. The form, appended to Form 6 (used for new voter enrolment) and Form 8 (for address changes), requires applicants to provide detailed information about a relative’s enrolment in the previous SIR—including name, EPIC number, assembly constituency, part number, and serial number. Booth Level Officers must verify these details, and any mismatch or omission triggers a notice from the Electoral Registration Officer, with false statements punishable under (up to one year imprisonment).
Two Election Commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—reportedly recorded objections in , calling the change “unauthorised and illegal” absent a formal amendment to the . The ECI has denied any rift, insisting all decisions were unanimous.
What the Actually Said
The ECI’s claim hinges on the ’s judgment, which upheld the Commission’s authority to conduct the Bihar SIR and its documentation framework. In that case, the petitioners challenged the prescription of 11 documents for proving voter eligibility. The Court ruled that during an SIR, the ECI is “not strictly bound by Form 6 alone” and retains “ ” to adapt the process.
However, the Court explicitly cabined that authority:
“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 to the object sought to be achieved.”
The Declaration Form the Court examined was Annexure D of the , order—a simple affirmation of age, residence, and citizenship. The current version, which demands relatives’ past SIR data, was not before the Court.
The “ ” Test
Legal experts point out that the new Declaration imposes a burden far beyond the statutory Form 6, which only requires the applicant’s own basic details. By linking enrolment to a relative’s presence in a previous SIR—potentially 25 years old—the ECI must show how this requirement serves electoral roll accuracy. Critics argue it creates unnecessary hurdles, especially for vulnerable groups who may not recall part numbers or serial numbers.
“The Commission now stands to answer how linkage of an elector’s enrolment in the current SIR exercise to a relative’s enrolment during the previous SIR satisfies the test,” noted one analyst. Since the upheld the SIR framework on grounds, any new requirement that hinders enrolment without a clear justification could be vulnerable to challenge.
Implications for Voters
The ECI’s own guidelines warn applicants that “any false statement made in the DECLARATION portion is a punishable offence,” raising the stakes for an honest mistake about a relative’s details. Meanwhile, voters in 13 states and union territories that underwent SIR earlier this year did not face this requirement, raising questions about equal treatment.
The Commission has extended SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra but maintains the new Declaration is lawful. As the controversy escalates, the core question remains: Did the really give a green light, or did the ECI read too much into its judgment? For now, legal experts and opposition parties alike are calling for a closer look at whether the new form passes .
