Archive · 6 Oct 2026
Election Commission Faces Scrutiny Over SIR and Form 6 Changes
Ashok Lavasa says India’s Election Commission is facing serious criticism.
The dispute is about a voter-list exercise called the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR.
Some people are also questioning changes made to Form 6, a voter-registration form.
Two Election Commissioners reportedly objected to those changes.
The Commission has given different explanations about how the changes were made and whether the Supreme Court approved them.
The Court said the Commission could adapt documents for the exercise, but that its power had limits.
Lavasa says the Commission should share the minutes of meetings about the decision.
He believes clearer explanations and more openness could help restore trust.
Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa argues that the Election Commission of India has lost public confidence amid controversy over its Special Intensive Revision.
The article says two Election Commissioners raised objections to changes to Form 6, describing them as illegal and unauthorised.
The Election Commission gave differing public explanations about whether decisions were unanimous and whether the Supreme Court had upheld the changes.
The Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment recognized some scope for adapting documentation for the revision, while also saying the Election Commission’s authority was not unlimited.
Lavasa calls for greater transparency, including releasing meeting minutes, and says courts may set aside decisions found to be illegal.
- Who
- The Election Commission of India, its Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners; the article is written by former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa.
- What
- A dispute over the Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and changes to Form 6.
- When
- The article refers to a Supreme Court hearing on October 5, a Commission response on September 23 and 26, and a May 27 judgment; years are not specified.
- Where
- India, including the electoral-roll process in West Bengal.
- Why
- Critics question the legality, fairness and transparency of the revision and Form 6 changes; the Commission has cited a need to adapt documentation for the exercise.
Critics and dissenting commissioners
Election Commission and its defenders
Form 6 changes
Critics and dissenting commissioners
The article reports that one Election Commissioner called the changes illegal and unauthorised, and that critics view the Supreme Court’s October 5 remark as supporting their concerns.
Election Commission and its defenders
The ECI said the Supreme Court had upheld the changes and cited its May 27 judgment allowing an adapted documentation framework for SIR, within limits.
The SIR process
Critics and dissenting commissioners
Lavasa says the decision was abrupt and widely perceived as unfair, exclusionary and arbitrary, and calls for the relevant meeting minutes to be made public.
Election Commission and its defenders
The ECI has maintained that its decisions were unanimous and has described SIR as an exercise requiring a documentation framework suited to its purpose.
- Author
- Ashok Lavasa, a former election commissioner
- Institution
- Election Commission of India (ECI)
- Disputed exercise
- Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls
- Disputed form
- Form 6, which the article says was used in changed versions for SIR and non-SIR purposes
- Internal disagreement
- The article refers to 14 letters by two Election Commissioners and objections to Form 6 changes.
- Supreme Court judgment
- A May 27 judgment said the ECI had residual authority to formulate documentation for SIR, subject to limits and the statutory scheme.
- Appeals mentioned
- The article says 16 lakh appeals were filed before appellate tribunals concerning inclusion in West Bengal’s revised electoral roll.