IN THE latest of a series of U-turns that have effectively undone almost every decision the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had objected to in 14 notes over 10 months, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has now taken the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration out of the online version of the statutory voter enrolment form, Form 6, on its ECINet portal in the states where the SIR is still under way.What this means is that the declaration inserted between Sections J and K of the online enrolment application for new voters is no longer part of Form 6. This declaration asked applicants to choose one of three statements: whether their name appeared in the electoral roll during the last SIR held in the early 2000s, whether the name of a parent or grandparent appeared in that roll, or whether neither their name nor that of their parents appeared in it. An applicant could not proceed without answering it.Joshi had written on May 16 that no such change could be made without a legal amendment to the form. Sandhu, on August 13, called it “unauthorised/illegal”. This declaration is now available on the portal as a separate form.Also Read | ‘Illegal, unauthorised’: Election Commissioners objected to Form 6 changeThe development comes after the Commission told the Supreme Court, in its counter-affidavit filed on October 26, that its ER (Electoral Roll) Division had decided on October 21 to split the two. The affidavit says the SIR-related declaration had been placed inside Form 6 so that an applicant would generate a single OTP and a single e-signature rather than two, and that this “bonafide objective became a subject matter of deliberation and suggestions”. It goes on to state, “It has been decided vide decision dt. 21.10.2026 of the ER Division that as in the case of submitting the Application in Form 6 in a physical format, the online Application shall also be in two parts i.e. Form 6 as prescribed in the Rules and the SIR Declaration.”This is the third position the Commission has taken on Form 6 in six weeks, and it completes a reversal.On September 23, The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had objected to the change, on the ground that Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that only the Central Government can amend it. Joshi put that on record on May 16. Sandhu concurred on May 19. The question appeared on the online form anyway in July, as this newspaper first reported on July 12. On August 13, Sandhu called it “unauthorised/illegal” and said it must be removed immediately. It was still there when the investigation was published.Also read | 14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel stepsThe Commission’s first answer, in a press note issued the same day, did not mention Form 6 at all. It said “all actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission”, described the Commissioners’ notes as “operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages”, and said every decision of the past year was “an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission”.Story continues below this adThree days later, on September 26, the full Commission met and issued a second note. On Form 6, it said two things. “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.” This meant that the declaration in the online version of Form 6 would be limited to the SIR period, leaving it in place wherever the intensive revision was still running, such as Delhi and Maharashtra.Explained | Behind Form 7, deletion but only after probeThis was implemented and the declaration was then removed from the online Form 6 in the states where the SIR had concluded. It stayed between Section J & K where the SIR was still running. On October 12, the Supreme Court said it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6. On October 21, the ER Division of the ECI decided to take the declaration out of the Form 6 page everywhere and make it a separate document. That is what the form now shows on the ECINet portal.The affidavit still maintains that Form 6 was never amended. “There is no substance in the contention that Form 6 has been amended by the Commission vide the SIR Orders.” However it does acknowledge that “on a review of the manner in which Form 6 and the Declaration were displayed on the IT platform some concerns arose for the reason that the manner in which the Declaration was presented in the online system was such that it could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made. As stated earlier, Form 6 can only be amended by the Central Government.”Also read | What Election Commission rift reveals: Cloud over its conductThe Commission’s own explanation for putting the declaration inside Form 6 is that it saved the applicant an OTP. Two separate documents would have required two one-time passwords and two e-signatures. One page produced one of each.Story continues below this adWhat the investigation foundThe Indian Express reported on September 23 that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken in the Commission’s name without their knowledge. Their notes ran to areas that go to the heart of what the Commission does: who gets registered as a voter, who is deleted and restored, who appeals against those restorations, and who controls the software on which the electoral roll is now maintained. Another objection concerned the Commission’s own functioning, including an administrative order of July 28 that changed the allocation of work among senior officers, including the IT files, without the two Commissioners being consulted. Both wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary. The next day they jointly set the order aside.Five of the 14 notes were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. No reply from him is on record. Between May and August, the full Commission did not meet once.The Commission’s response on September 23 was that the notes were “suggestions” and “inputs”, part of normal deliberation, and that the important decisions of the past year carried the unanimous approval of the full Commission.Also Read | Why Congress is highlighting ‘machine-readable voter list’, with ECI’s new directiveIn the five weeks since, the Commission has moved on almost every point the two Commissioners had raised.Story continues below this ad Meetings: Agendas will be circulated before every Commission meeting and minutes issued afterwards. The Commissioners had recorded that neither was being done. Foreign travel: Officers’ trips abroad will need the Commission’s approval. The two Commissioners had recorded officers travelling without it. New IT systems: New IT modules and portals under DG IT Seema Khanna will go to a Committee of Officers and then to the Commission for approval. The Commissioners had recorded modules being built without the Commission’s knowledge. An audit of ECINet: A committee to check ECINet’s compliance with the applicable Acts and Rules was constituted by circular on October 14. It is headed by a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and includes a second Senior DEC, a DEC, a Director, four Chief Electoral Officers and two independent experts, from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru. Joshi had asked for an audit on May 29, describing what was happening as “the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”. Sandhu endorsed the proposal on July 13 and recorded on August 14 that the proposal had gone nowhere.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘Fight for accountability far from over’: After July protest, protesters return to streets Powers of field officers being curtailed by ECINet software: The Commission has now given officers on the ground far more discretion through changes in the software. For instance, four changes to ECINet sought by Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer S Chockalingam in a letter of September 24 have been made. Personal hearings for voters served notices over mapping failures or logical discrepancies are now exceptional, with Booth Level Officers collecting documents at homes instead. Voters may submit documents outside the 13 listed categories. EROs can decide logical-discrepancy cases themselves instead of routing them to the District Election Officer. And the mandatory upload of an extract from the previous SIR roll has been dropped. Sandhu had written on August 14 that “all the responsibilities regarding Electoral Roll lie on EROS, DEOs and CEOs,” yet “the access control has been centralised by DG (IT),” who “doesn’t have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate, as given by law, to the statutory authorities”. Goa’s 97 voters: The Investigation had revealed how the ECINet software did now allow election officials on the ground to bring back 97 voters on the final electoral roll despite several letters written by the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. The 97 had been deleted at the draft stage, produced documents, and were cleared by Goa’s own EROs, who then found ECINet had no option to reverse the deletion. The CEO’s office wrote to Delhi eight times in seven days, each letter copied to DG (IT) Seema Khanna. The final roll was published without them. The Chief Electoral Officer has been directed to facilitate their inclusion. The affidavit says 88 of the 97 have filled Form 6 and their applications have been accepted, six are out of the country and three hold Portuguese passports.Also Read | Lockdown, crackdown: People on roads bundled into buses, taken away by police; Delhi won’t be held hostage, says CM Alongside these, the Commission has ordered two fresh enrolment exercises. On September 29 it directed the states where the SIR is complete to run a “special drive” to enrol voters “left out” of the rolls. This month, it ordered a Special Summary Revision in 17 states and Union Territories, aimed chiefly at those turning 18 in 2027. Everyone filling Form 6 during this exercise will not have to fill the SIR related declaration. West Bengal: Sandhu’s note of August 12 put five questions to his officers about the lakhs of appeals filed against voters whose inclusion had been ordered by judicial officers: the total number, the category break-up, whether the ECI had filed them, who was authorised to file them and by whom, and who actually filed them. He recorded that when he asked the state’s Chief Electoral Officer, she said she did not have information about the details of the matter.Story continues below this adThe affidavit’s answer is that nobody inside the Commission needed to authorise filing of appeals before the tribunals because the Supreme Court had already said ECI officials could file them. In two orders, the court set out who could appeal against a judicial officer’s decision in the SIR: voters whose names had been struck off, and officials of the Election Commission who objected to a name being put back on. So the Commission is pointing at the court, not at itself.It then states that a communication of October 22 from the Bengal CEO’s office informs that the appeals were filed “by the officers of the Office of the CEO, West Bengal, in their capacity as authorities under the RP Act,” and that “these matters were not brought to the Commission.” It doesn’t disclose the total number of such appeals filed.Also Read | Jantar Mantar to the periphery: Will there be a cost for pushing protests out?This answer came ten weeks after Sandhu asked, four days before the affidavit was filed, and from the office whose head had told Sandhu she did not have the details. The appeals have not been withdrawn. The affidavit notes that the electors concerned, against whose inclusion appeals were filed, are on the rolls and voted in the recent Assembly elections.Through all of it, the Commission’s position in court is that nothing was decided wrongly. The affidavit states that it was approved for filing “by a unanimous decision of the three members”, that a note from a Commissioner “does not constitute a decision of the Election Commission under Section 18”, and that what required fixing were “certain steps taken by the officers to whom responsibilities had been assigned, which needed to be corrected”.