The inclusion of Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha in Delhi’s electoral roll, following his exclusion from Punjab’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) draft roll, raises questions about the application of electoral-roll procedures under SIR, underway since June 2025. The significance extends beyond a single individual to the rules, safeguards, and standards that the Election Commission of India (ECI) applies to millions of electors.Chadha’s name was excluded from Punjab’s SIR draft roll, published on August 13, 2026, and classified under Absent, Shifted, Deceased, Duplicate, and Other (ASDDO) as ‘permanently shifted.’ He could have challenged the exclusion during the Claims and Objections period, from August 13 to September 12, with the final roll scheduled for October 12. Instead, on August 26, he reportedly applied for inclusion in Delhi’s Rajinder Nagar constituency. His application was approved on September 2, after the prescribed seven-day notice period. The Delhi Chief Election Officer (CEO) said the inclusion followed due procedure and that, once approved, it was reflected in the electoral database.His electoral re-entry thus took place with remarkable speed, while millions of long-standing electors were excluded during SIR face verification and potentially faced prolonged claims, objections, and appeals. This contrast makes the Chadha case a test of whether SIR’s rules and safeguards are being applied uniformly.How electoral forms changedIndia’s present electoral framework emerged from a statutory change in 2021, followed by amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in 2022. The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, amended the ROPA, 1950, including provisions enabling the ECI to seek Aadhaar details to authenticate electoral roll entries. The amended provisions were brought into force in 2022 through a Union government notification, followed by the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules, 2022, and the ECI’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, March 2023.This transition changed the prescribed roles of Forms 6 and 8. Under the pre-2022 framework, Form 6 was used for new enrolment and by an elector shifting residence to another constituency, and the Form 8 series dealt with shifting within the constituency and correction of existing entries.However, since 2022, the framework was restructured: Form 6 has been for application for first-time inclusion in the electoral roll, with a declaration that the applicant is seeking “inclusion in Electoral Roll for the first time,” and Form 8 has been for shifting of residence within or outside the constituency and correction of an existing electoral entry. Since the commencement of SIR, the ECI and state CEOs have repeatedly publicised the respective uses of these forms, making the distinction widely known among electors.The route in questionThe Delhi CEO’s September 8, 2026 press note explains the general use of Forms 6, 7, and 8 but does not disclose which form Chadha used or the specific SOP/provision under which his inclusion was processed. It does, however, distinguish Form 6 for “enrolment of new elector” from Form 8 for “shifting of residence within or outside constituency by existing elector.” Three possibilities, therefore, arise:Also read: From Changes in Form 6 to SIR Voter Deletion Appeals, 2 Out of 3 Election Commissioners Objected 14 Times in 10 Months: ReportFirst, Form 8 was used. Chadha’s Punjab SIR record described him as “permanently shifted,” which falls within the Form 8 framework for an existing elector shifting residence. If this route was not followed, the ERO/AERO should disclose the legal basis for the alternative procedure.Second, the current Form 6 was used. Form 6 requires a declaration that the applicant seeks “inclusion in Electoral Roll for the first time.” If an established elector used this form, the application and verification record would need to show how that declaration was reconciled with his existing electoral history. Whether any false declaration was made cannot be determined without examining the actual application.Third, the old/deprecated Form 6 was used. If so, the ECI should identify the legal provision or SOP authorising its use in 2026, as well as the scrutiny applied by the ERO/AERO. The old form lacks the Aadhaar field introduced under the post-2021 framework and does not appear in the current online voter-service workflow. It, however, survives online.The old Form 6.The central issue, therefore, is not simply which form was used, but under what legal authority, SOP, and verification process the inclusion was approved. The ECO/ECI should disclose this record to determine whether the process followed was the prescribed procedure, an authorised exception, or a departure requiring explanation.Was there a violation? Who was accountable, if there was?Chadha has an established electoral record: he contested the 2019 Lok Sabha election, served as MLA from Rajinder Nagar in 2020, and has been a Rajya Sabha member since 2022. He is therefore plainly not a first-time elector.The issue, however, is not his political status but the procedure followed for his re-enrolment. If the current Form 6 were used, its first-time-inclusion declaration would require examination against his electoral history. If an earlier Form 6 was used, the ECI should disclose the legal authority for accepting it in 2026. The Delhi CEO’s press note does not establish which form was actually filed or the precise verification undertaken.A knowingly false declaration, if established, is punishable under Section 31 of the ROPA, 1950, with imprisonment of up to one year, fine, or both.Also read: How EC Has Quietly Changed Form 6 During SIR, Evading ParliamentAccountability, therefore, arises at several levels:Applicant: The application, declaration, electoral history, and verification record must establish what was declared and whether it was truthful.ERO/AERO: These officers are responsible for processing electoral-roll applications and determining eligibility. Section 32 of the ROPA, 1950, provides for penal consequences where an electoral roll official, without reasonable cause, breaches a statutory duty, subject to the conditions set out in that provision.Delhi CEO: The CEO should disclose the form, applicable SOP, verification record, and the basis for approval in this particular case, rather than relying solely on the general procedure described in its 8 September press note.ECINet: If the digital system failed to flag an applicant’s existing or previous electoral registration or SIR status, that raises a separate question about the adequacy of its validation and cross-checking mechanisms.ECI: Ultimately, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the SIR and electoral roll processes operate consistently under the ROPA, 1950, the applicable Rules, the Electoral Roll Manual, and approved ECI procedures.The larger issue is institutional credibility. SIR is premised on uniform procedures, verification, and an opportunity for redress. If an elector excluded during SIR can be re-enrolled through a route outside the ordinary claims-and-objections process, the ECI should establish whether the same route, verification standards, and safeguards were available to other similarly placed electors.Any alternative route should be legally identifiable, transparently applied, and auditable. The ECI should therefore disclose what route was followed in Chadha’s case, under what authority, what verification was undertaken, and whether comparable cases received the same treatment. This would help resolve the present controversy while addressing the broader question of the integrity and uniform application of the SIR process.Does SIR exclusion affect his Rajya Sabha seat?Under Section 3 of ROPA, 1951, a person elected to the Rajya Sabha must be an elector in a Parliamentary constituency in India; he need not remain an elector in the State from which he was elected. The State-specific requirement was removed by the ROPA (Amendment) Act, 2003. Thus, Chadha’s exclusion from Punjab’s SIR draft roll does not, by itself, terminate his Rajya Sabha membership, provided he remains an elector elsewhere.Nor was there an apparent need to secure his electoral status through an alternative route. His exclusion could have been challenged during the prescribed ‘Claims and Objections’ period and, if necessary, through the available appellate mechanism. The SIR process itself provides a route for eligible electors omitted from the draft roll to seek inclusion.This raises a narrower question: if his Rajya Sabha membership was not automatically at stake, what prompted his re-enrolment through the short route adopted – and what scrutiny was applied? The answer matters beyond his case, particularly in assessing whether comparable electors excluded during SIR had access to the same procedure and safeguards.One ruleThe ECI should make the SIR process fully transparent and auditable by publishing constituency- and category-wise data on exclusions, reasons, and the status of claims, objections, and appeals.It should also disclose how many SIR-excluded electors were subsequently re-enrolled through alternative routes, under what provisions, and after what verification. This would allow an objective assessment of whether comparable cases received comparable treatment. ECINet should cross-check every new application against existing electoral records and SIR status, flag inconsistencies, and maintain a complete digital audit trail.The principle is simple: one rule, one process, one verifiable standard – for every elector, without exception.Rajeev Kumar is a former Computer Science Professor at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former scientist at DRDO and DST.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.