By Sujit Bhar
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has made another U-turn, a turn that drives a bulldozer into its carefully constructed narrative of why the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) that it carried out before the last few elections was necessary at all. In its most recent announcement, the ECI has said, or rather clarified, that voters whose names are missing from the draft electoral rolls published during the SIR can apply for fresh inclusion through Form 6.
The problem is that Form 6 is meant for first-time voters. Embedded in the form is a declaration that the applicant should not have been an existing voter. It also carries the warning that if the applicant is found to have already been registered in an electoral roll, legal action could follow for making a false declaration.
This is no minor technicality. It is a serious deterrent, and one that has reportedly made people hesitant to use the form, even when Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have suggested that they do so. The threat of legal action is not something that an ordinary citizen can simply brush aside, particularly when the very purpose of applying is to recover a right that the citizen believes has been wrongly taken away.
The ECI has now attempted to resolve this contradiction. In a letter dated November 3, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officers of all states and Union Territories, the Commission has clarified that submitting Form 6 in such circumstances would not, by itself, amount to making a false declaration or invite prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
In other words, while the Commission had earlier indicated that applying for re-enrolment through Form 6 could expose an applicant to legal action, it now assures them that no such action would follow merely because they were previously registered voters.
THE TRUST FACTOR
However, should citizens be expected to accept this assurance without question? Considering the number of reversals and clarifications that have emerged from the ECI during the SIR exercise, it is hardly surprising if people remain unconvinced, not sure if they can trust the ECI anymore. More importantly, why should the Commission not simply change the format and content of Form 6 to remove the contradiction altogether?
The Congress has dismissed the latest clarification as “word games”, arguing that it does not address what the party considers the fundamental flaws in the revision exercise. The party has alleged that the SIR process was designed to exclude voters rather than merely clean up electoral rolls. The controversy has also reportedly exposed differences within the Commission itself.
According to a report in 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. Their objection was that changes to a statutory form required a formal amendment and could not be introduced unilaterally by the Commission. Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised/illegal”, while Joshi also raised concerns.
This raises questions that go well beyond the immediate controversy over a declaration in an application form.
A SCARY CONTRADICTION
If the Election Commission cannot unilaterally amend Form 6 because it is a statutory form whose contents require a formal legal amendment, how can the same Commission now permit its use for a purpose for which it was never designed? The contradiction is difficult to ignore. The Commission appears to have acknowledged that the existing form is unsuitable for the circumstances created by the SIR, yet instead of correcting the form through the legally prescribed route, it has chosen to issue a circular explaining how applicants should interpret it.
Can an administrative circular override the statutory character and basic structure of a prescribed form? More importantly, can such a circular neutralise a declaration that an applicant is required to make while submitting the application? A clarification from the ECI may explain its intention, but does it automatically remove the legal implications of the language printed or embedded in the form?
The Commission needs to answer these questions unambiguously. It cannot have it both ways. If it does not possess the authority to alter a statutory form without following the prescribed amendment procedure, it must explain the legal basis on which it believes a circular can effectively change the consequences of submitting that form.
There is another fundamental issue. The ECI has now offered an assurance that applicants will not face prosecution under Section 31 merely because they were previously registered voters. But what gives the Commission the authority to guarantee such protection when it is itself acknowledging, through the controversy surrounding the form, that its power to alter the statutory framework is limited?
A circular can communicate administrative instructions. But can it override statutory provisions or bind the authorities responsible for enforcing the law in a manner that the statute itself does not provide? The distinction is important. Citizens should not be asked to rely on an assurance that may subsequently be challenged, interpreted differently or, scarier still, withdrawn by another clarification.
WAS SIR A FORWARD-LOOKING EXERCISE?
The larger question is whether the ECI anticipated the consequences of its own SIR exercise. The revision was presented as an essential exercise to ensure clean, accurate and credible electoral rolls. Yet, the process has reportedly resulted in the deletion of more than 13 crore names (as per media reports) from electoral lists across the country. Even if a substantial proportion of these deletions are justified, the possibility of genuine voters being excluded through errors, procedural failures or inadequate documentation was always foreseeable.
What was the Commission’s contingency plan for such cases?
A massive exercise of this nature should have been accompanied by a clear, legally sound and easily accessible mechanism for restoring the names of genuine voters. It should have anticipated that people who had voted in previous elections might suddenly find themselves missing from the draft rolls. It should also have ensured that the remedy available to them did not require them to make declarations that were potentially contradictory or expose them to the threat of prosecution.
Instead, citizens are now being asked to navigate a maze of forms, declarations, instructions and subsequent clarifications. The BLO may suggest Form 6, but the form itself carries a declaration that appears to contradict the applicant’s circumstances. The ECI then issues a circular to reassure applicants that the declaration will not be treated as false in these particular circumstances. What happens if another interpretation emerges tomorrow?
This is hardly the way a constitutional institution entrusted with safeguarding the electoral process should function. The ECI is not merely an administrative agency maintaining a database of voters. Its constitutional responsibility is to ensure that every eligible citizen can exercise the right to vote without arbitrary or unjustified obstruction. Article 326 of the Constitution establishes the principle of adult suffrage, and the statutory machinery governing electoral registration must operate in furtherance of that principle.
The right to be included in an electoral roll is not a favour that the Commission extends to citizens. It is an essential precondition for exercising the democratic right to vote. Therefore, when the Commission undertakes an exercise that can potentially remove millions of names, it must ensure that the burden of correcting administrative mistakes does not fall disproportionately on ordinary citizens.
The post Malice In Wonderland appeared first on India Legal.