Listen to this article:

New Delhi: The Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have been in the eye of a storm over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The Indian Express’ report on the recorded dissent of two of three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on the conduct of the contentious exercise forced the Election Commission of India on the weekend, to announce a flurry of changes.

In its press note on Saturday (September 26), the Election Commission said that the old Form 6 will be used in “non-SIR” periods, and defended changes brought to the form for inclusion of new voters by saying that it had been upheld by the Supreme Court. But a look at the apex court’s May judgement, raises more questions about the poll body’s defence on changes made to this crucial form.

The controversial change to the online Form 6 application, requiring applicants to map their parents’ details to the previous SIR, failing which they cannot proceed, was brought only in July, whereas the Supreme Court’s judgement was delivered in May.

While the Election Commission said that the declaration to Form 6 was upheld by the Supreme Court it does not answer why the form was quietly changed, evading parliamentary scrutiny. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 that flows from the Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 require that any change or amendment to the form can only be made by the government and are subject to parliamentary oversight.

The Election Commission’s note on Saturday skips mentioning that the Supreme Court’s order on May 27, held that while the poll body retains a degree of authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to........

© The Wire