National

Doubts over ECI claim that Supreme Court upheld new Form 6 Declaration

The Election Commission of India said in a press statement that the Declaration attached to Form 6 for Special Intensive Revision has been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, a report notes the Court's May judgment on Bihar SIR examined only the Declaration in Annexure D of the 24 June 2025 order, which differs from the version introduced in July. The new Declaration seeks a relative's last SIR enrolment details. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections to the change.

Written by AI from Live Law (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 28 Sept 2026, 1:39 am IST

Source

Live Law (courts) · read the original report ↗

#election commission#form 6#supreme court#sir#electoral rolls

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

ECI stated in a press release that the Declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Supreme Court. — Quoted directly from the ECI press statement in the source.
The Supreme Court's May judgment on Bihar SIR upheld ECI's power to conduct SIR and its residual authority to tailor documentation, subject to a rational nexus test. — Supported by verbatim extracts of the judgment quoted in the source.
The Declaration examined by the Court was Annexure D of the 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR order, not the version introduced in July. — Author's assessment based on the source's reading of the judgment; not externally verified.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections, with Sandhu calling the change 'unauthorized and illegal' on August 13. — Attributed to an Indian Express report cited in the source.
False statements in the Declaration are punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act 1950 with up to one year imprisonment, fine, or both. — Figure and provision appear in ECI guidelines quoted in the source.

Written by AI from Live Law (courts) · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This is not merely a forms dispute; it is a test of the Election Commission's political credibility. Because the declaration the Supreme Court examined was reportedly the Annexure-D version from the June 2025 Bihar SIR order — not the new one introduced in July — the ECI's claim that the court "upheld" it becomes contestable. With two Election Commissioners having recorded objections, the internal split is now public, handing the opposition a ready-made argument.

Once dissent inside the Commission went on record, the political debate shifted from "is SIR justified" to "is the ECI following its own legal process".
For opposition parties this is an unusually easy narrative to run: the objection comes from within the Commission itself, not from a partisan critic.
The ECI's strongest political defence remains roll accuracy and the prevention of bogus entries, but asking voters to trace relatives' enrolment from roughly 25-year-old rolls looks burdensome to ordinary applicants.
Because a false statement in the declaration can attract penal consequences, the charge that a clerical slip could become a criminal risk is likely to travel further politically than the legal nuance.
That 13 States/UTs completed SIR without this requirement invites the regional grievance that stricter conditions are being applied selectively.

What to watch — Watch whether the ECI publicly defends the rational-nexus basis for linking a voter to a relative's past SIR entry, quietly rolls the requirement back, or the Centre moves to amend the Rules instead.

The story rests on reported accounts of what the court examined and what the Commissioners said, and it establishes neither which party gains nor how many enrolments have actually been affected.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 6 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, in which Form 6 — the statutory form for enrolling a new voter under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — has been accompanied by an additional Declaration. After two Election Commissioners objected to changes made to that Declaration, the ECI issued a press statement saying the Declaration attached to Form 6 had been "upheld by the Supreme Court" in its May judgment on the Bihar SIR. The report questions this claim, pointing out that the Supreme Court examined the Declaration in Annexure D of the ECI's 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR order, not the revised Declaration reportedly introduced in July, which asks applicants for a relative's enrolment details from the last SIR.

Key facts

The ECI press statement said: "The declaration attached to Form 6 has been upheld by the Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per the Rules [Registration of Electors Rules 1960] will be used."
On 24 June 2025 the ECI issued the order notifying SIR in Bihar; its 'Annexure D' contained the Declaration Form to be filed with Form 6/Form 8, covering age, ordinary residence and citizenship.
In July, as reported by The Indian Express, the ECI changed the Form 6 Declaration to require applicants to state whether they or their parents/relatives were included in the last SIR.
The new Declaration seeks the relative's name, EPIC number (if available), relationship, district, state, assembly constituency name and number, part number and serial number.
False statements in the Declaration are an offence under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections, arguing modifications cannot be made unless the Rules are amended by the Central Government.
The Indian Express quoted EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu calling the Form 6 change "unauthorized and illegal" on August 13.
Voters in 13 States/UTs underwent SIR without the requirement of furnishing previous SIR details of relatives.

Timeline

24 June 2025ECI issues order notifying SIR in Bihar, with Annexure D containing the Declaration Form to accompany Form 6/Form 8.
May (this year)Supreme Court, hearing petitions challenging Bihar SIR including the prescription of 11 documents, upholds ECI's power to conduct SIR and its residual authority over documentation.
JulyAs per The Indian Express, ECI changes the Form 6 Declaration to require details of the applicant's or relative's enrolment in the last SIR.
August 13EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu reportedly calls the Form 6 change "unauthorized and illegal".
Last weekThe Indian Express reports that ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections to the Form 6 Declaration change.
YesterdayECI issues a press statement claiming the Declaration attached to Form 6 has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Who has a stake

Election Commission of India — Must justify the new Declaration's rational nexus with the object of accurate rolls, and defend its claim that the Supreme Court upheld the current version.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — Have recorded internal objections that the change is impermissible without the Central Government amending the Rules; one called it "unauthorized and illegal".
New voters applying via Form 6 — Cannot submit the online form without filling the Declaration, and risk up to one year's imprisonment under Section 31 for errors in a relative's past SIR details.
Supreme Court of India — Its May Bihar SIR judgment — recognising residual but not unbounded ECI authority — is being invoked as approval for a Declaration it did not examine.
Petitioners challenging SIR — Have flagged that electors may not even know what a 'Part Number' is, making such technical details a barrier to enrolment.
Booth Level Officers and EROs — BLOs must sign undertakings verifying details from last SIR rolls; EROs must issue notices where details are unavailable or do not match the database.
Central Government — Only it can amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, per the objecting Commissioners' reasoning.

Why it matters

Form 6 is the gateway for every new voter entering the electoral roll, so any extra condition attached to it directly affects the franchise. Requiring applicants to trace a relative's enrolment in a roughly 25-year-old SIR, backed by a penal provision carrying up to one year's imprisonment, could obstruct genuine enrolment — and the report argues this specific requirement was never tested by the Supreme Court. The dissent recorded by two Election Commissioners also raises questions about internal decision-making within a constitutional body.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Form 6 = inclusion of a new voter; Form 7 = objection to inclusion/deletion; Form 8 = correction of an existing entry — under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 penalises false declarations with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
Annexure D of the ECI's 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR order carried the Declaration on age, ordinary residence and citizenship.
The Supreme Court's May judgment upheld ECI's power to conduct SIR and recognised "residual authority" over documentation, subject to a "rational nexus" test.
Form 6 documentation under the Rules is tailored to revision under Section 21(2) of the RP Act.
Election Commissioners named in the objections: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi; 13 States/UTs completed SIR without the relative-SIR-details requirement.

Mains framing

The controversy pits the ECI's administrative flexibility during a Special Intensive Revision against the statutory discipline of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court's May judgment on Bihar SIR conceded that Form 6, tailored to Section 21(2) revisions, may not apply literally to an SIR and that the Commission retains residual authority to design a documentation framework — but expressly said this authority is "not unbounded", must remain cognisant of the statutory scheme, and that any departure needs a rational nexus with the object of ensuring accuracy and integrity of the roll. The report's central contention is that the Court examined only the Annexure D Declaration of 24 June 2025 (age, residence, citizenship), whereas the July version additionally demands a relative's last-SIR particulars — EPIC number, assembly constituency number, part number, serial number — with BLO verification, ERO notices on mismatch, and Section 31 penal exposure of up to one year. That raises three tests the ECI must answer: rational nexus (how linking a new elector to a relative's decades-old enrolment serves roll accuracy), proportionality (whether enrolment can be hindered by such failure), and reasonable differentia (why 13 States/UTs completed SIR without this requirement). The way forward, on the source's own logic, lies in either amending the Rules through the Central Government as the objecting Commissioners urged, or publicly justifying the nexus and easing the burden on applicants unfamiliar with technical roll identifiers.

Key terms

Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An intensive ECI exercise to revise electoral rolls, during which the Commission has prescribed documentation beyond the standard statutory forms.
Form 6: The statutory form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for including a new voter in the electoral roll.
Annexure D: The Declaration Form appended to the ECI's 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR order, requiring declarations on age, ordinary residence and citizenship.
Section 31, RP Act 1950: Makes a false declaration in the enrolment process punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
Residual authority: The Supreme Court's term for ECI's latitude to tailor SIR documentation, bounded by the statutory scheme and a rational nexus requirement.
Rational nexus test: A departure from the statutory framework must be reasonably connected to the object sought — here, accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll.

Practice questions

Examine whether the Election Commission of India's residual authority to design documentation for a Special Intensive Revision can extend to requiring applicants to furnish a relative's enrolment details from a previous SIR.
"Deviations from statutorily prescribed electoral forms must satisfy a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved." Discuss with reference to the Supreme Court's Bihar SIR judgment and the Form 6 Declaration controversy.
What does the recording of objections by two Election Commissioners to a Form 6 change reveal about decision-making and internal accountability within the Election Commission of India?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyRepublicans expand spending to defend 39 once-safe US House seats →

← All stories