CPI(M) MP John Brittas Alleges Unlawful Modification of Online Form 6
CPI(M) MP John Brittas writes to CEC alleging unlawful modifications to online Form 6 and questions the legality of additional declarations.
In a significant escalation of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI), CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas has formally written to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The MP has raised serious allegations regarding the "unlawful modification" of the online Form 6 process, specifically pointing to an additional declaration that has been made compulsory for citizens attempting to join the electoral roll.
The Core of the Dispute: Statutory Rules vs. Executive Discretion
The controversy centers on whether the Election Commission has the authority to alter the requirements of Form 6 without following proper legislative procedures. John Brittas argued that Form 6 is not merely an administrative document that can be changed at the whim of the executive. According to the MP, once a form is prescribed by statutory rules, it becomes part of subordinate legislation that can only be modified through a formal amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, via the Official Gazette.
Brittas highlighted a critical distinction made by the Commission during a recent clarification. The ECI suggested there is a difference between the declarations used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and the statutory forms used during non-SIR periods. The MP questioned how the Commission could unilaterally create such a distinction without corresponding official notifications.
Concerns for Vulnerable Voters
The MP expressed deep concern regarding the practical impact of these changes on specific demographics. He argued that the new requirements could create significant hurdles for:
- First-time voters navigating the system for the first time.
- Migrant workers and displaced persons.
- Orphans and adopted persons.
- Citizens estranged from their families who may lack access to historical electoral details of their relatives.
Internal Dissent and the SIR Row
The letter comes in the wake of reports suggesting internal friction within the Election Commission. An Indian Express report claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over a ten-month period regarding decisions related to the SIR process, voter deletions, and access to electoral-roll databases.
While the Election Commission has dismissed these reports, maintaining that all decisions—including those related to SIR—were unanimous and part of standard administrative processes, Brittas has called for greater transparency. He suggested that the publication of the "operative discussion portion" of the files authorizing the online requirements is necessary to clarify the legal basis of these actions.
The Commission's Defense
In response to the growing scrutiny, the Election Commission has maintained its position. The poll body stated that:
- The declaration attached to Form 6 for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
- For periods outside of the SIR, the standard forms under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, remain in use.
- Operational queries and suggestions raised during the draft stages are a routine part of the decision-making process.
Brittas, however, remains unconvinced, asserting that Article 324 of the Constitution provides supervisory and administrative authority but does not grant the Commission independent legislative power to rewrite statutory rules.