ECI SIR Row: Form 6 Changes, ECINET Questions Put Gyanesh Kumar Commission Under Scrutiny

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under renewed scrutiny over its handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, particularly after announcing corrective measures for voters who were left out of updated lists.

Following a meeting involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the ECI directed states to identify eligible voters missing from post-SIR rolls and assist them with fresh enrolment. The Commission also said that the standard forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used outside the SIR process.

Form 6 Controversy

One of the most contentious issues has been the addition of an SIR-related declaration to the online version of Form 6 on the ECINET portal.

The additional section reportedly sought information connecting new applicants with earlier SIR electoral rolls through themselves or their parents. Critics argued that this went beyond the statutory Form 6 without a corresponding amendment to the rules.

The ECI subsequently removed the additional declaration from ECINET in states where SIR had concluded. The move followed objections reportedly raised by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi.

The ECI has also announced an expert review of ECINET, involving an independent IIT/IIIT expert, to examine whether the system complies with relevant laws and rules. The decision followed concerns highlighted after 97 voters in Goa, despite successfully challenging their deletion, were reportedly not restored to the final electoral roll because of software-related problems.

Special Drive for Missing Voters

The Commission has now ordered election officials to identify voters who appeared on earlier rolls but are absent from the post-SIR lists. Officials have been asked to compare electoral rolls, contact eligible voters and assist with registration.

The initiative is being implemented across multiple states. In Gujarat, for example, special registration drives have been scheduled on four Sundays to assist first-time voters and citizens who were left out of electoral rolls after the revision process.

Questions Over Electoral Safeguards

The developments have triggered wider debate over whether the safeguards used during SIR were adequate and whether citizens should have to seek re-enrolment after their names disappear from an electoral roll.

The supplied analysis also raises allegations involving mass Form 7 deletion requests, alleged misuse of digital credentials and challenges to voters whose inclusion had been restored through the appeal process. These claims remain matters of dispute and investigation rather than established findings.

The controversy has therefore shifted from the SIR exercise itself to a broader question: how can the ECI ensure that electoral-roll revisions remain legally compliant, transparent and capable of protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote?

Key Takeaways

• ECI has ordered special drives for voters left out after SIR.
• The disputed SIR declaration was removed from the online Form 6 in states where SIR had ended.
• ECINET is set to undergo an expert review.
• The Goa case involving 97 voters has raised questions about software and electoral-roll restoration.
• Critics continue to question the legal and administrative safeguards used during SIR.

Why This Matters

The controversy is significant because electoral rolls determine who can exercise the right to vote. The ECI's corrective steps may help restore confidence, but the continuing debate over Form 6, ECINET and deleted voters places the Commission under pressure to demonstrate that technology-driven electoral revisions operate within statutory rules and provide effective safeguards for eligible voters.