ECI split Form 6 online after its own design confused voters
The Commission denied changing the statutory form, then separated the online declaration from October 21. Telangana should watch what Delhi calls clarity.
The statutory form stayed the same; the screen did not.
The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that Form 6 was never amended. It also acknowledged that its online presentation alongside a separate SIR declaration could be read as an amendment. From October 21, the two were split. The statutory form survived; the confusing interface did not.
According to reports describing the ECI’s affidavit, Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and only the Union government can amend it. The Commission said the SIR declaration was a separate document and that the online process had originally displayed both together so applicants could complete them through one OTP and electronic signature. That explanation may account for the design. It does not make the design less confusing.
The ECI also told the court that the three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimously approved by all three commissioners. It said internal suggestions and queries during file processing were not formal Commission decisions. Those are the ECI’s positions as reported; the affidavit and approval records were not available in the material reviewed.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has called the wider dispute “vote theft” and demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The reports reviewed do not establish that allegation. What they do establish is narrower and damning enough: the election authority created an online presentation that could reasonably be misunderstood, then corrected it after the fact. Telangana has not been shown to be part of this exercise, but any future rollout here deserves a published interface, a change log and numbers—not another assurance that the form was technically unchanged while the screen plainly said something else.