ECI de-links Form 6 from SIR declaration flagged by 2 Election Commissioners

The Election Commission of India has separated the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, declaration from online Form 6. Form 6 remains the online application for seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. The change matters because applicants no longer complete both processes through one combined form.

The declaration had been inserted into Form 6 in some states during the SIR exercise. After concerns from Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, the ECI’s Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 to separate them. The decision was disclosed to the Supreme Court on October 26.

The revised system went live on the ECINet portal on November 4–5. It applies across all states, including those where SIR is still underway. Applicants now use Form 6 for electoral-roll inclusion and submit the SIR declaration through a separate procedure.

Form 6 is the online application used by a person seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. The SIR declaration is connected to a Special Intensive Revision, an exercise that reviews electoral rolls. Separating them clarifies that applying for inclusion and making the revision declaration are distinct steps.

Previously, the SIR declaration was placed inside online Form 6 in states where the revision was underway. Under the new arrangement, applicants complete Form 6 for inclusion and submit the declaration separately. The change followed objections that the declaration had been inserted without a formal amendment.

The ECI implemented the separation on its ECINet portal on November 4–5. The declaration had already been removed from Form 6 where SIR was complete. The latest move extends that separation to states still conducting the revision.

The ECI applied the Form 6 change across all states in India. This included states where the Special Intensive Revision had already ended and states where the exercise was still underway. The scale is significant because the separation is no longer limited to completed revision exercises.

Before the latest rollout, the SIR declaration had been removed from Form 6 in states where SIR was complete. In states still undergoing revision, it remained connected to the online application. The new arrangement removes that difference by requiring a separate declaration everywhere.

The change was implemented on the ECINet portal on November 4–5. The ECI had disclosed its decision in a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court on October 26. Applicants nationwide therefore encounter the revised process, although local SIR activity may still be continuing.

The main practical change is that applicants must complete two separate submission procedures. They use online Form 6 to seek inclusion in the electoral roll, then submit the SIR declaration separately where required by the revision process. The declaration is no longer embedded in Form 6.

Earlier, applicants in states with an ongoing SIR exercise encountered the declaration inside the online Form 6 process. The ECI’s Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 to split the two. This followed objections from two Election Commissioners about the declaration’s insertion.

The separation became operational on ECINet on November 4–5 and applies across all states. The change creates a uniform structure, including in states where SIR remains underway. It also means applicants must pay attention to the separate declaration procedure rather than treating it as part of the Form 6 application.

Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu objected to the way the SIR declaration was added to online Form 6. Their concern was procedural: the declaration had been inserted without a formal amendment to the form. They questioned whether the change had proper authorisation.

Joshi raised his objection on May 16. On August 13, Sandhu also described the insertion as unauthorised and illegal. These objections focused on the form’s official status and the process used to change it, rather than on the general purpose of revising electoral rolls.

The issue led to several Commission decisions. On September 26, the full Commission kept the declaration in Form 6 where SIR was underway but removed it where SIR had concluded. On October 21, the Electoral Roll Division instead decided to separate them online, a decision implemented in early November.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an Election Commission exercise to review electoral rolls. The article describes the ECI’s stated aim as ensuring the accuracy of those rolls. It is therefore connected to checking and revising voter records rather than simply processing one person’s application.

During an SIR, the declaration was linked to online Form 6 in states where the exercise was underway. The ECI later separated the declaration from the form. This procedural change followed objections from Election Commissioners and was implemented across states through the ECINet portal.

The exercise remains politically contested. Opposition parties, including the INDIA bloc, have protested against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and raised concerns about voters’ names being deleted. The ECI maintains that SIR is intended to ensure accurate electoral rolls. The article does not provide a separate timetable for future revisions.

Electoral rolls are official lists of eligible voters. In the process described here, a person seeking inclusion submits Form 6, while the Election Commission conducts revision exercises such as SIR. Officials generally check applications and records before adding, retaining, correcting, or removing entries. The source does not detail every verification step.

The article gives one concrete example of this system: Form 6 is used to seek inclusion, while the SIR declaration relates to a broader roll-revision exercise. The ECI says revision is intended to ensure electoral-roll accuracy. It has now separated the declaration from Form 6 so the two procedures are formally distinct.

Accuracy matters because incorrect rolls can exclude eligible voters or retain inaccurate entries. In a democracy, reliable rolls support legitimate participation and public confidence. The current controversy shows why procedures must be authorised, documented, and transparent, especially when parties raise concerns about deleted names.