The Election Commission of India (ECI) has raised a razor-thin justification to allegations that it has unauthorisedly amended Form 6 to introduce extra-statutory requirements for voters whose names were deleted in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to return to the electoral rolls.
The ECI calls the exercise ‘mapping’. Any perceived mismatch of lack of detail in this regard is broadly termed as ‘logical discrepancy’. The ECI has introduced an additional declaration form along with Form 6 which require these voters to provide details of their earlier electoral roll entries or that of their parents or grandparents. In Delhi alone, there were initially 33.12 lakh cases of ‘no-mapping’ or ‘logical discrepancy’.
The Supreme Court on October 5, 2026 distanced itself from the controversial alterations made to Form 6 for registering new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several States, shifting scrutiny to the Election Commission of India (ECI) Supreme Court seeks responses from ECI and Centre after petitions alleging unilateral CEC-led decisions and immunity concerns in India’s election governance. A common affidavit filed for the EC, CEC Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi say that any attempt to restrain the CEC’s functioning is contrary to the 2023 Act; asserts that Form 6 was not amended; West Bengal CEO’s officers filed appeals against inclusions
ECI defends adding a declaration with Form 6 amid SC scrutiny over new Form 6 and voter mapping during SIR. ECI defends CEC’s independence, rulings, and Form 6 integrity, detailing multi-member consensus and 2023 Act provisions before the Supreme Court.
