Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Tuesday, 3 November 2026, sharply attacked the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its latest clarification on Form-6, calling it another round of 'word games' that fails to address — and in fact exposes — the fundamental design flaws in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. Ramesh demanded an immediate halt to the SIR exercise, arguing that no amount of damage control can rescue what he characterised as a structurally exclusionary mechanism.

The Core Allegation

Ramesh pointed to a specific contradiction at the heart of the ECI's position: Form-6 explicitly asks applicants whether they are 'applying for inclusion for the first time.' The Commission's clarification, he argued, attempts to reframe previously enrolled voters seeking re-inclusion as 'first-time applicants' — a move he described as a 'deceptive word game' designed to paper over a process that compels voters to make what he termed a false declaration.

He further alleged that the ECI, having required voters to sign such a declaration, is now offering retroactive protection from legal consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 — a sequence he said illustrated how poorly conceived the entire exercise had been from the outset.

Internal Dissent and Court Scrutiny

Ramesh also cited dissent from within the electoral machinery itself: he noted that the Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra had written to the ECI contending that Form-6 cannot lawfully be used in the manner the Commission is now proposing. Additionally, he referred to proceedings before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, where, according to him, the court has questioned the ECI's reasoning — particularly the SIR's treatment of absent and shifted voters, who risk being left out of electoral rolls entirely.

What the ECI Said

The Commission had issued a clarification stating that previous electors whose names do not appear in the draft electoral rolls may submit Form-6 without fear of prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The ECI maintained that such a submission, made under the SIR process, cannot be deemed false solely because the elector was previously enrolled. The Commission framed this as a protective measure for voters navigating the revision exercise.

Ramesh's Charge: Designed for Exclusion

'It deletes voters first, and then asks them to apply for re-inclusion as new voters,' Ramesh said, in what amounts to the Opposition's sharpest characterisation yet of the SIR's mechanics. He maintained that the process is structurally oriented toward exclusion rather than accuracy, and that successive clarifications have only deepened that impression.

Broader Opposition Context

Ramesh's remarks reflect a widening front of Opposition criticism against the SIR exercise, which is currently under way across several states. This is not the first time the ECI's roll-revision methodology has drawn political fire — similar concerns about voter deletions surfaced during earlier intensive revision drives. Critics argue that the absence of a clear, transparent re-inclusion mechanism disproportionately affects migrants, seasonal workers, and marginalised communities. The ECI has yet to formally respond to the Maharashtra CEO's reported internal objection or to the court's queries in the Goa proceedings. How the Commission handles these parallel challenges — administrative, judicial, and political — will shape the credibility of the SIR's final output.