ECI defends Form 6 before the Supreme Court; says SIR declaration is separate document

NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that Form 6, used to enrol new voters and include eligible persons whose names are missing from electoral rolls, has not been amended. The Commission said the Central government has the authority to amend the form. It clarified in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the question about whether a parent's name appeared in the preceding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) electoral roll was part of a separate declaration and not an amendment to Form 6.

The online display of the declaration alongside Form 6 had created the impression that the form had been amended, the Commission said. It added that Form 6 and the declaration had therefore been made available separately on its website from October 21. The affidavit was filed in response to public interest litigations, including those brought by the INDIA bloc, challenging the Commission's functioning. The ECI also stated that the affidavit had been approved unanimously by the Commission.

The Commission told the court that decisions to delete names from electoral rolls and subsequently restore them when the individuals were found eligible rested with the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) concerned, who are responsible for their respective constituencies. The clarification came amid opposition allegations that officials at the grassroots level had been denied access to the Commission's website. Opposition parties had also accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Seema Khanna, head of the Commission's IT division, of manipulating electoral rolls.

Decisions taken unanimously

The Commission's affidavit stated that decisions relating to the SIR process had been taken unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The Commission argued that the demand for the CEC's removal was not maintainable, maintaining that he could be removed only through the constitutionally prescribed process applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

The affidavit also referred to objections raised by the two Election Commissioners over an order issued by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg concerning the allocation of duties within the election administration division. According to the Commission, the two commissioners had complained that Garg issued the order within hours of taking charge of the division without informing the Commission. The ECI added that the order had not been implemented and warned that action would be taken against officials who exceeded their authority.