Struck off in SIR, told to swear they’re new voters: Maharashtra asks EC to fix Form 6

Maharashtra is asking for a practical correction to Form 6. The form is currently titled “application form for new voters” and requires applicants to say they are seeking inclusion for the first time. That does not fit voters who were already registered but were removed during the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR.

Officials report that these voters hesitate to use Form 6 because they fear its declaration could be treated as false. Maharashtra therefore proposes a separate declaration for people previously enrolled in a named Assembly constituency but no longer registered anywhere. It also wants them to provide their old EPIC number.

The proposal aims to help Electoral Registration Officers restore eligible voters without forcing them into an unsuitable legal category. Any statutory change requires the Central government to amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The ECI’s response to Maharashtra was still awaited.

Form 6 is titled “application form for new voters.” Its declaration says the applicant is seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time and is not listed in any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency. The form warns that a false declaration can attract imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

That wording worries people whose names were deleted during the SIR. They were previously registered, so saying they are applying for the first time may appear inaccurate. Officials report that some voters fear legal action even though they are trying to regain an earlier registration.

This creates a barrier for EROs trying to restore names. Maharashtra wants an alternative declaration for former electors who are no longer registered anywhere. The proposal would make the form match their situation and reduce confusion about lawful re-enrolment.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an intensive process for checking and updating electoral rolls. The article does not fully describe its field procedures, but it records that voters’ names were deleted during the SIR. A deletion can therefore affect people who had appeared on an earlier roll.

The article gives a concrete example from Goa. Ninety-seven voters removed from the draft roll produced documents during a Supreme Court-ordered hearing. The state’s EROs found them eligible, but the electronic system had no option to reverse the deletions.

Those voters were eventually told to apply afresh using Form 6. The episode shows how a verification exercise can create a second administrative problem when systems cannot restore an eligible person directly. The article also notes that the original online Form 6 was restored in 20 States where the SIR was complete.

Maharashtra proposes removing the words “new voters” from Form 6’s title. It also wants an alternative declaration for applicants who were previously enrolled in a named Assembly constituency, are no longer registered anywhere, and are applying for inclusion again.

The proposal would additionally let applicants provide their earlier Elector Photo Identity Card, or EPIC, number. That identifier could help officials trace the person’s previous entry, connect the new application with earlier records, and assess whether the applicant was previously enrolled. The article presents this as a way to support restoration, not as an automatic reinstatement.

The changes would give EROs a clearer route for handling returning voters. However, Form 6 is statutory, so the Central government would need to amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The ECI’s response to the Maharashtra proposal had not arrived when the article was published.

The article describes a problem extending across states, but it does not give a nationwide count of voters affected by SIR deletions. It reports that the original online Form 6 was restored for 20 States where the SIR was complete. That figure concerns the form’s online version, not the total number of deleted or excluded voters.

Goa provides the clearest numerical example. Ninety-seven voters removed from the draft roll submitted documents during a Supreme Court-ordered hearing. State EROs found them eligible, but ECINet had no option to reverse the deletions. They were not re-included before the final roll was published.

The 97 voters were then told to apply afresh on Form 6. The article presents Maharashtra’s proposal as the latest effort to fix this broader restoration problem. It also reports that Maharashtra’s claims-and-objections window closes on October 26, with the final roll due November 16.

Form 6 is statutory because it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Therefore, the Central government must amend those Rules to make a formal change. Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi noted that the form could not be altered without such an amendment, and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu agreed.

The ECI oversees the electoral-roll system and communicates with state election officials. Its commissioners objected to an extra online question added to Form 6, calling the change unauthorised or illegal. At the local level, EROs process applications and deal with hearings, documents, and discrepancies.

The article says Maharashtra sought system changes so EROs could exercise discretion already available under law. The Commission accepted four of those requests. The current proposal still requires action by the Central government if it would alter the statutory form itself. The ECI’s response remained awaited.

Electoral rolls must correctly include eligible voters and follow the legal process for additions and deletions. If the form’s declaration does not match a person’s history, citizens can face a conflict between telling the truth and using the available procedure. That can weaken confidence in the restoration process.

The Goa example shows the practical stakes. Ninety-seven voters produced documents after a Supreme Court-ordered hearing, and state EROs found them eligible. Yet ECINet had no option to reverse the deletion, so the voters were not included in the final roll and were told to apply afresh through Form 6.

The episode reveals a gap between legal discretion and administrative tools. Maharashtra asked for ECINet changes, and the Commission accepted four requests. A clearer Form 6 and a direct re-inclusion mechanism could make restoration more accurate, consistent, and accessible to eligible voters.

If Form 6 remains unchanged, a voter whose name was deleted during the SIR may have to use a form designed for first-time applicants. The person would need to declare that they are applying for inclusion for the first time, despite having been registered earlier. That mismatch can delay or prevent restoration.

The concern is reinforced by the form’s warning under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. A false declaration may lead to imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both. Officials say voters have become reluctant to use Form 6 because they fear legal action.

This could leave eligible people off the final roll unless they overcome the hesitation and reapply. The article reports that deleted Goa voters were directed to apply afresh, while Maharashtra seeks an alternative declaration and old-EPIC field. The ECI’s response was still awaited.