Thiruvananthapuram (Keralam) [India], September 27 : Amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas on Sunday wrote a letter to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging "unlawful modification" of the online Form 6 process by way of an additional declaration accompanying the form. 
"I write to express serious concern regarding the unlawful modification of the online Form 6 process by way of an additional declaration accompanying Form 6, and its compulsory operation for citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll," Brittas said in his letter.
This comes as the ECI is facing attack from the opposition parties, as an Indian Express report had claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR process and other electoral matters. The reported disagreements included issues concerning Form 6, voter deletions and access to electoral-roll databases.
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to institutional dissent over final decisions. The poll panel said operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the draft stage were part of its standard administrative and decision-making process. The poll body maintained that all decisions taken by the Commission, including those related to SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of all three commissioners.
Referring to the clarification, Brittas wrote, "The Commission's clarification on 26th September 2026, distinguishing the declaration applicable during Special Intensive Revision from the statutory forms applicable during the non-SIR period, further complicates the issue. How the Commission can, by itself, make a distinction between online Form 6 and the electoral registration forms applicable during the non-SIR period, without corresponding notifications after modification of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 in the Official Gazette, is a matter to be profoundly discussed. The press meeting also did not resolve questions concerning the authorisation of the online requirement, its operation within SIR, or the difficulties faced by applicants unable to ascertain their historical electoral particulars."
Brittas argued that Form 6 "is not an administrative document that can be modified at executive discretion."
"Once a form is prescribed by statutory rules, it becomes an integral part of subordinate legislation," he said, adding it can only be modified through amendment of the Rules by the competent authority.
On the Commission's constitutional powers, he said, "Article 324 is a constitutional source of supervisory and administrative authority; it is not an independent repository of legislative power. It cannot be invoked to rewrite statutory rules or to assume powers that Parliament has expressly entrusted elsewhere."
Citing the media report, Brittas wrote, "Reports that two Election Commissioners objected to the modification of statutory forms without amendment of the Rules and sought removal of the portal changes merit a reasoned institutional response. The Commission's statement that the SIR orders were unanimously approved does not explain how the specific reported objections concerning Form 6 were resolved."
He said that publication of "the operative discussion portion of the files authorising the online requirement" would clarify its legal basis and institutional process.
Brittas claimed that the requirement could burden "first-time voters, migrant workers, displaced persons, adopted persons, orphans and citizens estranged from their families," who may not have reliable knowledge of a relative's electoral history.
Meanwhile, the ECI said the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Supreme Court. For non-SIR periods, forms applicable under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, will continue to be used.