Maharashtra Urges EC To Revise Form 6 For Voters Deleted During SIR Roll Revision

The Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to amend Form 6, raising concerns that voters whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are being required to declare themselves first-time voters to get their names reinstated.

The proposal seeks to simplify the re-enrolment process for eligible voters who were previously registered but whose names are missing from the revised electoral rolls. The existing requirement has reportedly created confusion and fears of legal action among voters who are being asked to make a declaration that may not accurately reflect their circumstances.

Why Maharashtra Wants Changes to Form 6

Form 6 is currently designated as an application form for new voters. Its declaration requires applicants to state that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time and that their names are not included in any Assembly or parliamentary constituency.

Making a false declaration under the form can attract penalties under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, including imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.

This has created a practical difficulty for previously registered voters whose names were omitted during the SIR process. Although they are seeking to restore their existing electoral status, the form’s wording appears to require them to describe themselves as first-time applicants.

What Changes Has Maharashtra Proposed?

The Maharashtra CEO’s office has proposed removing the words “New Voters” from the title of Form 6 and introducing an alternative declaration for applicants who were previously registered in an Assembly constituency but are no longer listed anywhere on the electoral roll.

The proposal also seeks to allow applicants to provide their previous Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number. This would help election officials trace their earlier registration records and distinguish returning voters from those seeking registration for the first time.

The changes are intended to make the re-enrolment process clearer and reduce the apprehension faced by eligible voters who want their names restored.

Election Commission’s Re-enrolment Drive

The proposal comes after the Election Commission directed states and Union Territories where the SIR exercise had been completed to conduct a special drive to enrol eligible voters who may have been left out of the electoral rolls.

Under the September 29 directive, Form 6 was designated as the route for adding such voters back to the lists. In Maharashtra, where the SIR process was still underway, the form was also being used to seek the re-inclusion of voters missing from the draft rolls.

However, election officials have reported difficulties persuading some previously registered voters to submit the form because of its first-time registration declaration.

Rule Changes May Be Needed

Any amendment to the statutory Form 6 would require the Central government to modify the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The issue has also drawn judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has examined concerns over changes to Form 6 and the procedure for restoring eligible voters to electoral rolls. The court’s observations have highlighted the need to clarify the legal and procedural basis for the form’s use in re-enrolment cases.

The Election Commission’s response to Maharashtra’s latest proposal was awaited as of October 18, 2026.

Maharashtra’s Electoral Roll Timeline

Maharashtra’s claims-and-objections window for the draft electoral rolls was scheduled to close on October 26, while the final electoral roll was due to be published on November 16.

The proposed amendment could help eligible voters whose names were omitted during the revision process seek re-inclusion without making a declaration that they are registering for the first time. The issue remains significant for election officials working to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded because of procedural confusion.