By Rakesh Dubey, Bhopal
The Election Commission still has to answer the Supreme Court’s questions, yet fresh and serious contradictions have already surfaced within the Commission itself. The latest case concerns Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) S. Chokalingam. He has written to the Election Commission suggesting that the words “for new voters” be removed from Form 6, because the form is being misused. Form 6 is being filled even for re-registration of existing voters, whereas the law clearly requires that Form 6 be used only by those who have completed 18 years of age and are becoming voters for the first time.
Voters whose names were left out or deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process are also being made to fill Form 6 and declare that they are becoming voters for the first time — that they have never been voters before. This is a serious legal contradiction. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, making a false declaration in Form 6 is a punishable offence. Such a voter can be sentenced to one year in jail. There is also a provision for fine. Both jail and fine can be imposed together.
The contradiction raises a further question: why is the Election Commission not changing the Form 6 arrangement when a senior officer of the rank of a state’s CEO has described the existing wording and system as “wrong and illegal” and sent a proposal to change it? Can the Election Commission make any change in Form 6 at all? Are old voters being forced to fill Form 6 for re-registration? Why are these registrations not being done through Form 8?
In fact, the Election Commission cannot make any change in Form 6 on its own. For that, the Central Law Ministry can issue a notification after making an amendment under the 1960 law. If the matter is more complicated and has a constitutional dimension, a proposal can be placed and passed in Parliament. Now that a fresh controversy has arisen over changing the wording of Form 6 and removing the attached affidavit, the Election Commission will have to deliberate. The Supreme Court has already asked the Commission, through an affidavit, to clarify when and by whom the order was given to attach the declaration with Form 6. Was this decision taken unanimously by all three Commissioners, or was it the CEC’s alone? These answers will have to be given with evidence. Therefore, the Commission cannot risk removing the existing wording either.
The most serious constitutional question is this: in the Special Summary Revision (SSR) being conducted in 17 states and Union Territories, are the voters whose names are being added afresh being registered through Form 6? This process is completely “illegal.” The Election Commission’s prolonged silence will not solve the problem. The CEC and both Election Commissioners should hold a joint press conference and clear the fog. The Commission is not bigger or more important than the country. It must protect its image and reputation.
So far, about 13.37 crore names have been deleted under SIR. Of these, about 2.80 crore are “deceased.” This pruning is unavoidable. The remaining 10.57 crore names can still be re-added to the electoral rolls — that is our belief — because not a single citizen can be deprived of the constitutional right to vote. Of these, about 6.30 crore voters are being treated as “shifted.” They may have moved somewhere else in the country. Has their vote been registered at the new place? Maharashtra’s CEO has also suggested that in such cases, permission should be given to use the voter’s old EPIC number (the number printed on the voter identity card).
In reality, the SIR process itself has turned into a “joke.” It should be stopped, because SSR is sufficient. Another question is why the Supreme Court has not yet taken a decision on this constitutional issue and issued directions to the Commission. Can any such initiative be taken on the dates of 27–28 October? Voters whose names have been wrongly deleted must be given the right to vote, and their names must be restored.