TWO ELECTORAL FORMS AT THE HEART OF INDIA’S VOTER-ROLL BATTLE AS SIR SPARKS NATIONAL CONTROVERSY
October 1, 2026
India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has triggered growing controversy over two key documents used in the voter-registration process: Form 6, which enables eligible citizens to enrol as voters, and Form 7, which allows objections to voter inclusion and requests for deletion. Allegations of procedural irregularities, bulk submissions and discrepancies in voter-registration outcomes have brought both forms under increased scrutiny.
FORM 6: THE GATEWAY TO VOTER REGISTRATION
Form 6 is the prescribed application for eligible citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. Applicants are required to provide personal information, proof of age and ordinary residence, along with declarations concerning citizenship and existing voter registration.
The controversy centres on an additional declaration introduced into the online form during the SIR process, seeking information about applicants’ parents or grandparents and their presence in earlier electoral rolls. Opposition leaders, activists and some former election officials have questioned whether this additional requirement was introduced through the legally prescribed procedure.
The Election Commission has maintained that the declaration applies during the SIR exercise and has stated that the prescribed forms continue to operate outside that process. The additional declaration has reportedly been removed from the online Form 6 in states where the SIR has been completed, while it remains applicable in states where the exercise is ongoing.
FORM 7: THE POWER TO CHALLENGE VOTER ENTRIES
Form 7 enables a registered voter to object to the inclusion of a person’s name, seek removal of an existing entry or request deletion of their own name. Permissible grounds include death, permanent relocation, duplicate registration, ineligibility due to age and lack of Indian citizenship.
Under the prescribed procedure, filing an objection does not automatically result in the removal of a voter. The objection must be examined, and the applicant is expected to substantiate the grounds cited. Electoral authorities are responsible for verifying the information and determining whether any change to the roll is justified.
However, allegations of bulk Form 7 submissions in Karnataka have raised concerns about potential misuse of the procedure. Reports have described large numbers of objections targeting Muslim voters in several constituencies, with some applications allegedly containing pre-filled voter details and questions surrounding the identity or authorisation of those submitting them.
Karnataka Congress leaders have called for investigations into the alleged misuse, while authorities have indicated that complaints will be examined and action taken where violations are established. The allegations have not, by themselves, established that all the challenged applications were fraudulent or that the affected voters’ names were deleted.
BENGAL’S VOTER-ROLL DISPUTE
West Bengal has witnessed a separate controversy over the processing of Form 6 and Form 7 applications. An analysis of electoral-roll data submitted in court has highlighted a substantial difference between the proportion of inclusion applications and deletion applications that resulted in changes to the rolls during the period examined.
The figures have intensified questions about the handling of applications, the verification process and whether eligible voters face unequal obstacles when seeking enrolment or attempting to retain their names. The data, however, does not independently establish that every deletion was wrongful or that every pending inclusion application was rejected.
The Trinamool Congress and other opposition parties have alleged that the revision process risks excluding genuine voters, while the BJP has disputed accusations of politically motivated manipulation. The Election Commission has defended the exercise as a statutory process intended to maintain accurate electoral rolls.
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
The controversy has extended beyond the forms themselves to the procedures governing their modification, digital implementation and scrutiny. Opposition leaders have questioned the authority under which the additional declaration was introduced into Form 6, while reports of objections within the Election Commission have added to calls for greater institutional transparency.
The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions concerning the SIR were taken in accordance with established procedures and has referred to judicial observations concerning the exercise. Critics, however, have sought greater clarity on the precise scope of judicial approval and the decision-making process behind the changes.
At the centre of the dispute is the distinction between preventing ineligible entries and protecting the voting rights of eligible citizens. Form 6 provides a route into the electoral roll, while Form 7 creates a mechanism to challenge entries. Both depend on transparent procedures, reliable verification and opportunities for affected individuals to respond before their electoral status is changed.
As the SIR controversy continues, the scrutiny of these two forms has become part of a wider debate over electoral administration, institutional accountability and the protection of citizens’ voting rights. The outcome of ongoing investigations, legal proceedings and the Election Commission’s review of its procedures will shape how these concerns are addressed.
