New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday (November 3) has defended its use of Form 6 for the re-inclusion of voters who have been deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and said that submission of the statutory form meant for inclusion of new voters is not “false merely because the elector was previously enrolled.”While Form 6 is a statutory form for inclusion of new electors in the electoral rolls, it has been contentiously used by the EC for re-inclusion of those who have been deleted in the SIR. The form carries a declaration which requires voters to state that they are applying for inclusion for the first time and their name is not included in any other assembly or parliamentary constituency. The declaration also says that making a false declaration “is punishable under Section 31 of Representation of the People Act,1950 (43 of 1950) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.”Former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) S.Y. Quraishi has said that the EC officials forcing voters to fill Form 6 are “abetters to crime”.“Form 6 can’t be filled by a deleted voter. It’s only for NEW voters. All those who have been forced to fill it have committed criminal offence carrying one year prison. EC officials who forced them are abetters to crime. This press note shows ECI’s abetment!” he wrote in reference to the poll body’s announcement of a special drive on October 1 to include voters.While the EC has cited a Delhi high court’s order last month saying that any voter’s apprehension of a false declaration is “misplaced” based on the poll body’s counsel’s suggestion to fill Form 6 for reinclusion, it has not made any mention of the Supreme Court’s observations last week where the apex court questioned the use of Form 6 for re-enrollment of voters who were already on the last electoral roll. It also does not mention that the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in Maharashtra sent a proposal to the EC to amend Form 6 so that voters deleted during SIR can apply to get back on the electoral roll without declaring that they are enrolling “for the first time,” citing hurdles being faced by officials on the ground in getting voters to re-apply due to the declaration.The EC letter also provides no explanation for why the form for inclusion of new voters, is being used for reinclusion of those who have been deleted in the SIR. While it provides no legal action will be taken, it does not say why it is asking voters to do so in the first place. In terms of an explanation it only says that “an elector whose name does not appear in the draft roll is required to seek inclusion afresh in the electoral roll under SIR or afterwards, irrespective of whether the elector had been enrolled previously.” “The submission of Form 6 in such circumstances is, therefore, for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll under SIR or afterwards and is not, by itself, false merely because the elector was previously enrolled,” it said.In a letter addressed to the CEOs of all states and Union Territories, the poll body said it has come to its notice that some electors whose names do not figure in the draft electoral roll “are hesitant to submit Form 6 as these voters are also required to furnish a declaration prescribed in Form 6 to the effect that their name is being included for the first time in the electoral roll.”“Therefore, such electors believe that submission of Form 6, in view of their previous enrolment, would amount to making a false declaration and render them liable for prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950,” the letter said.Also read: How Over 50 Lakh Cleared West Bengal Voters Ended Up Under Judicial Review In SIRThe EC in its letter sought to defend its use of the Form 6 for reinclusion of voters who were in the rolls earlier but deleted in the SIR by saying that “an elector whose name does not appear in the draft roll is required to seek inclusion afresh in the electoral roll under SIR or afterwards, irrespective of whether the elector had been enrolled previously.”“It is clarified that an elector whose name does not appear in the draft electoral roll may submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, an elector whose name does not appear in the draft roll is required to seek inclusion afresh in the electoral roll under SIR or afterwards, irrespective of whether the elector had been enrolled previously. The submission of Form 6 in such circumstances is, therefore, for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll under SIR or afterwards and is not, by itself, false merely because the elector was previously enrolled,” it said.The poll body cited the Delhi high court judgement on October 14, in which electors who had been deleted objected to the use of Form 6 for re-inclusion to say that the court had ruled that the petitioner’s apprehension over a false declaration was “misplaced”.The letter said that the court had held that the “petitioner’s apprehension regarding a false declaration was misplaced and the court closed the writ proceedings with the observation that the petitioners, if they so desire, may submit Form 6 to be processed in accordance with law.”“Accordingly, no action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, shall be initiated by an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) against an elector merely on the ground that the elector had been included in a previous electoral roll and has submitted Form 6 during the SIR process or afterwards, provided that the elector is not already enrolled in any other Parliamentary or Assembly Constituency and the declaration made is otherwise in accordance with law,” the letter said.While the EC has cited the Delhi high court’s order saying that any voter’s apprehension of a false declaration is misplaced, it has not made any mention of the Supreme Court’s observations last week where the apex court questioned the use of Form 6 for re-enrollment of voters who were already on the last electoral roll.In its order on October 14, the Delhi high court had noted the EC counsel’s submission that the petitioner may submit Form 6 and the court order said that “when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too as per the instructions of the ERO, petitioner no.1’s apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced.”Also read: EC Orders Suspension of Two Election Officers in UP Following Pilibhit RevelationsBut just two weeks after this, the Supreme Court bluntly questioned the use of Form 6 at all for existing voters seeking re-inclusion.Hearing a writ petition filed by transparency activists Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri over the various issues in the Delhi SIR exercise, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana pointed out that Form 6 is meant only for first-time voters, where the applicants have to declare that they have not voted before. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned why voters already on the latest electoral roll had to file Form 6. For an existing voter who had merely moved within Delhi, the appropriate form was Form 8, which allows electors to update their address. The CJI gave an example with a voter moving from Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar, they could identify their existing entry and report the change through Form 8, and said that Form 6, was for those seeking enrolment in Delhi for the first time, Supreme Court Observer reported. Context to the Form 6 controversyForm 6 has been one of the most contentious areas of the SIR including the controversial changes to the online application, requiring applicants to map their parents’ details to the previous SIR, failing which they cannot proceed to the next step. Two Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have filed objections on this, The Indian Express reported in September. In its counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court last week, the EC has denied any amendment made to the statutory form for inclusion of new electors – the form can only be amended by parliament. The Wire has reported that the poll body in the counter affidavit, however, conceded that the declaration requiring an applicant to establish a connection to the previous SIR was “entered into the online page” to generate a single one-time password or e-sign.Also read: EC’s Latest Submission in SIR Case Suggests It’s Become Habituated to Filing False AffidavitsPrior to the counter affidavit, the EC in a press note on September 26 following the IE’s report had said that the “declaration attached” to Form 6 had been “upheld by the Supreme Court,” while saying that the old Form 6 will be used for “non-SIR period.” The Wire had reported then that the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR judgement on May 26 had said that while the EC retains a degree of authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a SIR, such authority is “not unbounded” and must remain in the existing statutory scheme. Further the changes to online Form 6 were only made in July, while the SIR judgement was delivered in May.On October 5, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had said that the apex court never approved of the amended Form 6. “Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear,” the CJI said. “When the record is produced, we want to see who has modified the Form 6,” he had added.On October 12, the Supreme Court said that it has neither approved nor disapproved the revised Form 6.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.