ECI clarifies no action against voters using Form 6 for re-enrolment after SIR

The Election Commission of India directed on Tuesday, 2 November 2026, that no action should be taken against voters merely because they appeared on a previous electoral roll and then submitted Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision process or afterwards. The instruction applies provided the elector is not already enrolled in another Parliamentary or Assembly constituency and the declaration is otherwise lawful.

In a letter to the chief electoral officers of all states and Union Territories, the ECI stated that electors whose names do not appear in the draft roll must seek inclusion afresh under the SIR or later, regardless of prior enrolment. “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,” the letter said.

Electoral Registration Officers were told not to initiate action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, solely on the ground of previous inclusion followed by a Form 6 submission. The clarification aligns with a Delhi High Court ruling in Nilotpal Datta & Anr. The declaration in Form 6 that an applicant’s name is being included for the first time has been in force since 1 August 2022.

The Special Intensive Revision is the current nationwide exercise to update electoral rolls. Voters deleted or missing from the draft rolls prepared during the process are required to re-apply. The ECI’s letter removes the risk that a previous enrolment history could be treated as evidence of a false declaration when Form 6 is used for that re-inclusion.

The guidance covers both the SIR period itself and any applications filed afterwards. It does not protect applicants who are already registered in a different constituency or who make declarations that violate other provisions of the law. EROs retain authority to verify ordinary eligibility criteria such as age, citizenship, and residence.

The letter was issued after questions arose about whether voters deleted during the intensive revision could face penalties for using Form 6, the standard application for new enrolment. By stating that prior enrolment does not render the Form 6 declaration false, the Commission aims to prevent procedural challenges that could delay re-inclusion of eligible voters.

State chief electoral officers are expected to circulate the instruction to all EROs and assistant EROs. Implementation will determine how many previously enrolled voters successfully re-enter the rolls without additional legal hurdles. The ECI has not published aggregate figures on the number of Form 6 applications received under the current SIR.

The Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 31 addresses false statements in electoral matters. The Commission’s clarification limits the circumstances under which that section can be invoked against Form 6 applicants who were once on the rolls. Ordinary verification continues for all other aspects of the application.

Voters whose names are absent from the draft roll must still complete the prescribed process, including the statutory declaration. The ECI’s position is that the declaration is accurate for the purpose of the current inclusion exercise even if the person was enrolled in an earlier revision. That distinction removes one potential ground for rejection or prosecution.

The instruction is now part of the operational guidance for the ongoing revision. Electoral officials will apply it when processing applications from individuals who can demonstrate prior enrolment but are missing from the current draft. The net effect is to treat those applications as ordinary requests for inclusion rather than as potentially fraudulent re-entries.

No further public statement from the ECI has expanded on the letter. State election machinery is responsible for ensuring that EROs follow the direction. Eligible voters who were deleted can now file Form 6 with reduced risk of being accused of making a false declaration solely because of their earlier presence on the rolls.