Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, raised the questions in a post on X as scrutiny continued over an additional declaration linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He asked who instructed TCS to make the changes, who signed off on them and whether the technology company had been subjected to pressure.
The intervention followed the Election Commission’s removal of the SIR-linked declaration from the online Form 6 on its ECINET portal in states where the intensive revision has been completed. The declaration remains available for states where the exercise is continuing.
Form 6 is the statutory application used by citizens seeking enrolment as new voters. During the SIR process, an additional declaration sought information on whether an applicant, a parent or a grandparent appeared on electoral rolls prepared during an earlier intensive revision.
The dispute centres on the distinction between the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the additional declaration required during an SIR. The Election Commission has maintained that Form 6 itself was not changed and that the SIR requirement was introduced as a separate declaration accompanying the approved form.
Gandhi challenged that explanation on Thursday, focusing on how the workflow was altered and who exercised authority over the technical implementation. His questions placed TCS, which provides technology services for the election system, at the centre of his demand for an account of the decision-making chain, although he did not provide evidence that the company independently determined the change.
The controversy gained momentum after Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi were reported to have objected to the addition on legal and procedural grounds. The disputed online section required applicants to respond before they could complete submission, even though the section itself was not labelled mandatory.
The two commissioners’ objections were based on the position that amendments to statutory electoral forms require action by the Union Law Ministry. The Election Commission subsequently said differences of opinion among commissioners were part of institutional deliberations and that decisions taken by the three-member body were ultimately unanimous.
Election Commission officials have also said SIR orders covering different phases of the revision listed Forms 6 and 8 with an additional declaration and had been approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi. Form 8 is used for specified corrections and shifting of residence in electoral records.
On September 26, the Commission announced that during periods when an SIR was not under way, forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules would be used. Four days later, the additional declaration disappeared from the ECINET Form 6 workflow for states where final SIR rolls had already been published.
The Commission’s citizen services portal continues to distinguish between the standard Form 6 and a declaration form in connection with the ongoing SIR process. The portal identifies Form 6 as the application for new voter registration for people aged 18 or above, including those who will reach voting age within the prescribed qualifying period.
Congress has used the Form 6 dispute as part of a broader challenge to the Election Commission over the conduct of electoral-roll revisions. Party leaders have demanded greater disclosure of internal decisions and questioned whether procedural safeguards were followed. The Commission has rejected allegations that its processes are designed to favour any political party and has said electoral-roll work is conducted under the applicable legal framework.
Gandhi’s questions did not allege that TCS had itself devised the disputed requirement. Instead, he sought to establish which Election Commission authority directed the company’s technical work and whether the instruction had gone through the required approval process.
