00:00So who decided the changes in Form 6 and can they be called changes or not?
00:05The EC claim they're not even changes.
00:07When was the parent's declaration added?
00:11Form 6 changes, are they a violation of the law?
00:15Is it time for the EC and the CEC in particular to come clean on whether the due process was
00:22followed or not?
00:24Big questions.
00:27Let's take those big questions then to our special panel of judges and lawyers.
00:31Justice Lokpal Singh, former judge, Uttarakhand High Court.
00:34Siddharth Luthra, senior advocate, Supreme Court.
00:37Ek Lavia Devedi is advocate on record at the Supreme Court, standing counsel for the Election Commission of India.
00:43Justice Singh, let me come to you first.
00:45How do you see what is now happening in the courts of the country where today the Supreme Court,
00:51Justice Surya Khan made it very clear that they had not authorized the modifications made by the Election Commission.
00:58Has the Election Commission, in your view, got much to answer for for the way in which the SIR exercise
01:05is being conducted?
01:11Honourable Chiefs of India has categorically stated that the Supreme Court has not permitted to the ECI to change in
01:18the Form 6,
01:19though the change has been made as per the news reports.
01:24So what has been done by the Election Commission of India, that at the time of revision of the Votes,
01:33that they have to mention their parentage and their parentage, whether they were the part of the last SIR or
01:42not.
01:43So this is the additional grounds taken in the Form.
01:48So it comes within the residual power of the Election Commission of India.
01:54You believe it comes within the residual power of the Election Commission of India?
02:00Because I had Justice Lokur who says it's not within the residual power of the Election Commission of India.
02:06You believe it comes within their powers?
02:08I am of the firm view, yes, yes, it is within the residual power of the Election Commission of India,
02:15because it cannot be, there cannot be a straight jacket formula that only these are to be the grounds taken
02:22and these are the format of the voting.
02:26Okay.
02:27Siddharth Lutra, your view.
02:28So they have rightly done it.
02:29Okay.
02:30Siddharth Lutra, your view.
02:31One, one, yes.
02:32Siddharth Lutra, your view on this.
02:34Do you believe that the Election Commission of India has much to answer for?
02:39Or do you believe that the Election Commission, as Justice Singh is saying,
02:42this is within their residual powers to, in a way, have fresh documents or modifications made to Form 6 for
02:50new voters?
02:52I think it is not within their residual powers.
02:54I believe that they've exceeded their authority.
02:57And my view is you can't have a situation which the Election Commission, though a statutory body,
03:04a constitutional body, proceeds to deprive people of a constitutional right, which is the right to vote.
03:10The right to vote is not only a statutory right, it's also a constitutional right.
03:14And therefore, my belief really is that they've exceeded their jurisdiction.
03:18If at all this had to go through a statutory process, and the Election Commission has gone beyond what it
03:25could have done.
03:26That's the first part.
03:27The second part, I really believe, is it's an interesting remark that the Chief Justice has made,
03:32that they never approved the change.
03:35So when the matter is being overseen by court, and the court says it has not approved the change,
03:40and these forms were required to be placed before the court because they were overseeing the process,
03:46I think that's a second issue which arises that, is the Election Commission and its members therefore in breach of
03:54the orders of the Supreme Court?
03:55So there are two issues that arise here.
03:58The first, the absence of power and authority, and I don't think the residual power allows them to do it.
04:03Secondly, are they not in breach of Supreme Court directions?
04:07Both things will have to be adjudicated.
04:09No, but just the second part, in May, Mr. Luthra, the Supreme Court made it very clear.
04:15It validated the constitutionality of the exercise.
04:18It even validated the documents at that time that were being asked for for the Bihar elections by the Supreme
04:25Court.
04:25In fact, they said the document regime passes the legality test.
04:29And the SIR, they said, secures free and fair elections.
04:33It is authorized by statute.
04:35So SIR itself, the constitutionality of that, unquestioned by the Supreme Court,
04:41it now comes down to the modifications that have been made to the eligibility criteria.
04:48So there are two parts of it.
04:50One is, should the exercise be done at all or not?
04:53That is the one part.
04:54The other is, while doing the exercise, can you change the rules of the game?
04:58I think the court is now talking about not having approved the second part, the change in the form.
05:04The first part, of course, as we know, they've approved the SIR.
05:07And that is something which has already happened.
05:10And therefore, I believe that nobody can actually change the norms of the forms in the middle of an ongoing
05:17process.
05:18And if it's done without the requirement of law,
05:22then clearly the Election Commission and its members have a lot to be answered for.
05:26You know, I want to bring you in, Mr. Duvedi, for a moment,
05:30because the Election Commission, you are an advocate on record for the Election Commission.
05:33In its press note on Form 6, on September 26, 2026,
05:38Election Commission of India defends the inclusion of a new declaration form annexed to Form 6
05:44by claiming the Supreme Court of India has upheld the Form 6 declaration.
05:48But as the court today is saying, we did not approve of these modifications that you've made,
05:52which could deny many legitimate voters, citizens of India, the right to vote.
05:58So, is the Election Commission being economical with the truth?
06:03Well, not at all, Rajdeep.
06:04But first of all, good evening.
06:05Good evening to my co-panelists, my respected seniors.
06:09Let me just clarify the position here.
06:11Because the statement of the Supreme Court is being taken out of context.
06:15Let me come to the press release first, because you just brought that in.
06:18In press release, what the ECI has stated is that the declaration, which was part of Form 6,
06:23remember, Form 6 was already challenged in the first phase of the SIR, as you've already pointed out.
06:28And there was a declaration which was added to Form 6 earlier as well.
06:32So, that declaration, along with the entire exercise, as you've just indicated,
06:37the validity of which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
06:39That is all that the ECI has said.
06:41Now, the Supreme Court, when it says that we have not approved any modification,
06:46A, it does not mean, with due respect to the court, that we, as an institution,
06:51have to come to the Supreme Court to get its imprimatur on the modifications.
06:56B, as far as the power is concerned, the power has already been upheld.
07:00The sequitur to this statement is not that ECI does not possess the power to change the rules
07:05or the format of the rules or make some modifications.
07:08In fact, expressly, that power is provided under the statute under Section 21.3.
07:13And that is where we stand today.
07:15You want to respond to that, Siddharth Rutra?
07:18Is it, therefore, coming down to whether making these changes is within the residual powers
07:24of the Election Commission of India?
07:27Therefore, they do not need to seek either central government approval
07:30or, indeed, inform the Supreme Court about it?
07:35So, any residual power has to find its support within the provisions of the statute.
07:41I think my friend is talking about the residual power dehors the provision of the statute,
07:45and they'll have to make good their statement before the court as to whether they actually
07:50have, whether they can do this.
07:52Because, remember, this is a case of disenfranchisement.
07:55Can they do it, and can they do it in the manner that they've done it?
07:58I would ask you that this part of the debate will have to be left to the Supreme Court when
08:03it next takes up the matter.
08:05And it would be premature for us to go beyond a point.
08:09But I've expressed my view very clearly.
08:11I think the residual part does not necessarily support the stand which my learned young colleague
08:17Mr. Dhvedi is saying.
08:18No, but why?
08:18Because you're saying prima facie, it leads to the disenfranchisement of voters.
08:24It changes, in a way, rules for eligible new voters.
08:30Am I clear that you cannot include these kind of qualifications that result in legitimate citizens
08:36being denied the right to vote?
08:38Yes, it has to be linked to a provision of the statute.
08:41If the statute doesn't give them the power, the rules can't be framed based in a generic
08:47sense.
08:48Every rule has to be, so in our constitutional frame, the law or the statute is the parent
08:54body.
08:55Under that, and within the four corners of that, we have the rules.
08:58We can't have rules relying on a residual power which go beyond the terms of the basic
09:02law.
09:03You know, I want to bring you, Mr. Dhvedi, you want to respond?
09:06Will the election commission of India now give clarity to the Supreme Court?
09:13Because clearly at the moment, and the politicians are saying this is clear proof that the election
09:20commission of India, particularly the chief election commission who apparently, if the
09:25Indian Express report is right, bypassed or at least a fellow election commissioner called
09:32it illegal and unauthorized and yet, eventually the commission went ahead with it.
09:38Look, Rajdeep, we have been before the courts since a better part of a year, perhaps more
09:43than a year.
09:43Now, in fact, the X-R started in June when it was challenged in July.
09:46So, we are, we have never been shy of giving any clarification whenever the court has called
09:51upon to do us, called upon us to do so.
09:52Now, coming back to what my Leonid Singh and Mr. Luthra just stated, as I understood, he
09:58is more on the legitimacy principle.
10:00The argument seems to be that the power has to be utilized in a manner which does not allegedly
10:05lead to disenfranchisement.
10:07However, as long as the power exists, then we are at idem.
10:11I thought the question was whether there is power to change the rules, modify the rules
10:15or not.
10:15And that power is expressly there in the statute.
10:17Yeah, but if the power leads to lacks and lacks of legitimate Indian citizens being denied
10:22the right to vote, there will be questions.
10:24And that, Justice Singh, is part of the problem.
10:26Now, you've heard what Justice Bhuya has said, what Justice Nariman has said on my show,
10:30Justice Lokur saying it.
10:32The fact is, this scale of disenfranchisement, we saw what happened in Bengal in particular.
10:3822 lakh voters have gone in appeal already.
10:41Out of which 93% so far have been proved to be legitimate citizens.
10:44All of this will lead to questions over the entire SIR exercise.
10:51The arbitrariness of it.
10:54And the contours of Section 23, as my friend says, my view is the contours of Section 23
11:00do not permit this exercise.
11:02My friend believes otherwise and we'll have to leave it for the court to determine.
11:06I take that point.
11:07I listen, Justice Singh, you want to respond?
11:10Two of your, you know, senior colleagues in the court, Justice Roenton,
11:14Nariman, has said that what happened is completely an illegal act in Bengal.
11:21We've heard what Justice Bhuya has said.
11:24You cannot create two classes of legitimate Indian citizens.
11:27He says it's arbitrary.
11:29Your response, Justice Singh?
11:34Yes, so far, what inclusion is concerned?
11:39The allegations are that so many persons from the Bihar and West Bengal, their name have
11:45been deleted and the appeals are pending.
11:48Though appeals are pending and the decision will be taken on these appeals.
11:54Sir, appeals will take more than 12 years.
11:58Sir, appeals in tribunal will take more than 12 years.
12:01Can you deny so many Indian citizens the right to vote?
12:07No, no.
12:08My point is that the appeal should be expedited.
12:12There should be a mechanism to decide the appeal expeditiously.
12:16But we cannot permit those who are coming from the other countries to this country and they
12:24become the voter of this country on the basis of fake Aadhaar card, fake voter ID card.
12:30Well, at the moment, the election commission with due regard, sir, has not even provided
12:35us details of how many such people exist.
12:38Whether if these people, 22 lakh people are from Bangladesh or Rohingyas, no details have
12:46been provided.
12:46We are seeing now even in Telangana, one fourth of Telangana are not on the draft electoral roll.
12:5375 lakh people not on the draft electoral roll.
12:56In Delhi, it's almost 50%.
12:58So, there is something seriously wrong with the manner in which the implementation is
13:02taking place.
13:03Now, the question is, can that be subject to judicial review?
13:07Siddharth Lutra seems to believe, yes, it can.
13:09And it can be subject to judicial review.
13:12My young colleague, Eklavya Dwivedi, seems to believe that the court, that the election commission
13:18clearly has the powers to decide on the kind of documents that are required.
13:23I'll leave it there.
13:24I appreciate all of you joining me here on the news today.
13:27Thank you very much.
