Full Breakdown
Election Commission’s Form 6 Changes Spark Legal Challenges and Political Fallout
By Drooid · · How we work
Form 6 Alterations and the SIR Controversy
The Election Commission of India (ECI) added a declaration to the online Form 6 used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, requiring applicants to map parental or grand-parental entries to the previous SIR roll. Two Election Commissioners—Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi—called the amendment “unauthorised and illegal” and asked for its removal. Petitions challenging the change have been filed in the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
Legal and Institutional Background
Form 6 is prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, which stem from Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1950. Amendments to the form normally require a parliamentary amendment. The Supreme Court’s May 27 2026 judgment upheld the SIR’s constitutionality but warned that the Commission’s authority to modify documentation “is not unbounded.” The July-2026 online change therefore raised compliance questions.
Timeline of Key Developments
- May 27 2026 – Supreme Court limits the Commission’s documentation authority.
- After May 27 2026 – Online Form 6 altered to require parental details from the previous SIR.
- August 13 2026 – Sandhu labels the change “unauthorised and illegal.”
- September 26 2026 – ECI press note says the original Form 6 will be used for non-SIR periods and claims the declaration is Supreme Court-upheld.
- September 26 2026 – Meeting with CEC Gyanesh Kumar and dissenting commissioners states the letters concerned an officer on deputation, not policy.
- October 22 2026 (scheduled) – Bombay High Court hearing on the petition.
- October 30 2026 (scheduled) – ECI extends the deadline for filing claims in Delhi.
Official Statements & Responses
The Commission announced a review committee, headed by a senior deputy election commissioner and including an independent expert from IIT/IIIT, to examine ECINET’s statutory compliance. It also reiterated that the letters from Sandhu and Joshi were addressed to the Cabinet Secretary about an officer on deputation, not to policy matters.
Criticism & Opposition
Opposition leaders argue the Form 6 change breaches parliamentary procedure. Jairam Ramesh (Congress) called it “blatantly illegal and unconstitutional,” saying it creates hurdles for first-time voters. Union Minister Chirag Paswan urged the Commission to present its side firmly to maintain public trust.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The ECI maintains that no statutory Form 6 was altered and that the additional declaration is an SIR-specific order. Independent reporting documents an online change that blocks applications lacking parental SIR data, which the dissenting commissioners described as “unauthorised and illegal.” The Supreme Court’s May 27 order did not explicitly endorse the specific amendment, leaving a gap between the Court’s pronouncement and the EC’s claim of judicial endorsement.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on the petition challenging the CEC’s unilateral decisions. The Bombay High Court will consider the Form 6 petition on October 22 2026. The ECI’s extended filing deadlines (until October 30 2026 in Delhi and October 12 2026 in Maharashtra) give affected voters time to raise objections. The outcome will determine whether the Form 6 amendment stands or is struck down as beyond the Commission’s statutory authority.