In an affidavit filed to counter petitions against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision, the poll body submitted that a declaration form was added to the formalities under the SIR exercise, which requires voters to link their details with the previous electoral rolls of their parents and grandparents. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified to the Supreme Court that it has not made changes to Form 6, a document all first-time voters are required to duly fill in.
“In the SIR Orders, issued by the ECI for the voters whose names did not appear in the draft Electoral Roll, one of the documents stipulated for meeting the eligibility criteria is the additional Declaration Form. The poll body explained that after providing the data, applicants would eliminate the need to submit further documents for verification. This mechanism facilitates/expedites the further progress of the SIR towards its conclusion,” the Election Commission noted in the affidavit. The report claimed the two Election Commissioners were not apprised of many of these decisions. “The files put up by the respective divisions are sent first to one Election Commissioner and thereafter to the other Election Commissioner and then finally to the Chief Election Commissioner … Such approved decisions of the Commission are duly noted in the relevant files of the Election Commission and bear the signature of the ECs and CEC. Thereafter, the decision is notified and implemented by the ECI Secretariat,” it elaborated in the affidavit.
It said in the court document that only the central government can make changes to the format of Form 6. The poll body clarified that Form 6 is the mandatory document for new voters, and the declaration form is a separate document. The Declaration Form is one of the documents which is required to be submitted by any Applicant/voter along with Form 6 for his/her inclusion in the Electoral Roll during the SIR exercise. The Declaration is a document provided by the SIR Orders and is NOT a part of Form 6, which is the statutory Form for inclusion in the Electoral Roll,” it added. “Through this substituted Declaration Form (Annexure IV) provided for under the SIR Order dated 27.10.2025 and 14.05.2026, the Applicants could submit the details regarding self/parents/grandparents in the earlier SIR and would then, on being successfully mapped, not be required to submit further documents during the claims and objections period. The petitions against Kumar and SIR — which was launched to eliminate duplicate voters — were filed in the wake of a report by The Indian Express that said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on the record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR. The newspaper also reported that the two Election Commissioners had objected to the change in Form 6, arguing that it needed to be sent to the central government for any alterations.
“On a review of the manner in which Form 6 and the Declaration were displayed on the IT platform, some concerns arose for the reason that the manner in which the Declaration was presented in the online system was such that it could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made,” the Election Commission wrote in the affidavit. “The amended Declaration was a measure that would enable the person seeking registration as a voter to dispense with the need for filing documents during the claims and objections period,” it said. It said the said declaration was amended to introduce a concept it called “mapping”. The concept was introduced “to connect the details of the Applicants with the earlier SIR of 2002/2003 data, by requesting the Applicants to provide the details of the electoral roll/entry in the earlier electoral roll of self/parents/grandparents”. “It was a measure for the assistance of voters,” it added. The poll body told the court that the declaration would only be required for the SIR process. The report said the warning was ignored. The poll body said all decisions it took regarding SIR were unanimous. It said the petition was based solely on a single newspaper report. “In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates,” it argued.
Because the officer could only be removed through a process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge, it said the petition seeking the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner was not maintainable.
