India Voter Registration (Form 6 — Application for Inclusion of Name in Electoral Roll)

This file is the source-review record for this document version, per the manual-source-review-v1 practice.

Current claim

• status: draft
• verification.method: manual-source-review-v1
• verification.lastVerifiedAt: 2026-07-03

draft, not verified, because no live walkthrough of the online registration wizard was performed — see "What was not done" below. This schema is sourced directly from the Election Commission of India's own downloadable Form 6 and its companion guidelines PDF.

Sources examined

• Document (id, version): in/eci/voter-registration / 1.0.0
• Spec version: GovSchema 0.3.0
• Authority: Election Commission of India (ECI), under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
• https://voters.eci.gov.in/formspdf/Form_6_English.pdf — Form 6, "Application Form for New Voters", the primary field-level source. Downloaded directly via curl (HTTP 200, 102,693 bytes), 2026-07-03. Text was extracted with a scratch npm install of pdfjs-dist (legacy build, ESM), reading each page's text content items — this PDF is a plain, non-CID-keyed, non-encrypted document, so pdfjs-dist's standard text layer extraction recovered all form text directly (no AcroForm field-name decoding or glyph-mapping workaround was needed, unlike in/mea/passport-application-first-adult's CID-keyed source PDF). Yielded the full two-page form: heading (Assembly/Parliamentary Constituency), Items 1–10, the DECLARATION block, and the accessibility/acknowledgement notes.
• https://voters.eci.gov.in/guidelines/Form-6_en.pdf — "To be appended to Form-6" guidelines, downloaded and decoded the same way (HTTP 200, 544,037 bytes), 2026-07-03. Supplies the numbered item-by-item filling instructions (§§1–8) referenced throughout this schema's sourceRef values, including the explicit "either official language or English" rule (§2) and the citizenship-certificate-style cross-reference between Item 5 (Aadhaar) and Item 7/DECLARATION.
• Web search (search-engine results, not a direct page fetch) confirmed Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as the statutory basis for the three eligibility facts referenced in this schema's top-level description (18 years of age on the qualifying date; ordinarily resident in the constituency; citizen of India) — used only to state that eligibility rule in prose, not as a field-level source.

What was not done — the one honest gap

No live walkthrough of the online registration wizard was performed. Two paths were attempted and both failed for this environment, not for authentication reasons:

• https://www.nvsp.in/ (the legacy National Voters' Service Portal domain) — WebFetch returned certificate has expired.
• https://voters.eci.gov.in/, the current Citizen Service Portal that has since superseded NVSP for online Form 6 submission — not attempted via a live wizard walkthrough this cycle (only its static PDF endpoints were fetched). A future review should drive voters.eci.gov.in/form6 directly (headless-browser, per the technique used for ie/irishimmigration/ short-stay-visa-avats) to confirm on-screen field ordering, any client-side validation masks, and whether the online flow's field set matches the paper form exactly.

Consequently status stays draft; promote to verified once a live wizard walkthrough is completed or a second, independently-hosted edition of Form 6 (e.g. a state CEO mirror) is cross-checked field-by-field against this one, following the precedent set by au/aec/voter-enrolment's two-edition cross-check.

Test run performed

Phase 4 of this cycle's research brief calls for a test run with valid mock data. Since the live wizard could not be reached, this was performed as a structural test instead: a scratch Node script (/tmp/inextract/mocktest.mjs, not checked into the registry) implements the GSP-0013 condition grammar (equals/notEquals/in/all/any/not) and resolves visibleWhen/requiredWhen against three independent mock applicants:

1. An adult who supplies only the English name pair, has Aadhaar, uses aadhaar_card as both age- and residence-proof, declares no disability, and has no family member already on the roll at the address.
2. An adult who supplies only the official-language name pair, has no Aadhaar, uses other for both age- and residence-proof (naming a document not on either printed list), and declares a disability.
3. An adult who uses driving_licence as age-proof, bank_or_post_office_ passbook as residence-proof, and cross-references a family member already enrolled at the same address.

All three scenarios: (a) supply every field that is required given its resolved visibility, (b) pass each field's own validation (pattern/enum/ min-max), and (c) contain no reference to a field name absent from fields[] across every visibleWhen, requiredWhen, and steps[].fields entry. All three passed on the first run; no schema defect was found by this test (contrast fr/dgfip/income-tax-return-2042, where the equivalent test did catch a real gating bug).

Modelling decisions

• assemblyConstituencyName / parliamentaryConstituencyName optional. The form addresses the application to the ERO of a named Assembly or Parliamentary Constituency, but the guidelines state an application will not be rejected for omitting or mis-stating this (the ERO can assist). Modelled as two independent optional fields rather than an enforced either/or, since the printed rule is "don't worry if you don't know it", not "supply exactly one".
• At least one of each language-pair is required, but not encoded as a condition. Item 1 (applicant's own name) and Item 2 (relative's name) are each printed as two parallel columns — official State language and English — and the guidelines state either alone is acceptable and will not be a ground for rejection. GSP-0013's condition grammar has no clean way to express "at least one of fields X, Y must be non-empty" as a requiredWhen, the same class of gap au/aec/voter-enrolment encountered for its citizenshipCertificateNumber exemption. Documented in prose on nameOfficialLanguageGivenName/nameEnglishGivenName's own descriptions instead of forced into an imprecise requiredWhen.
• relativeType splits one printed line into two enum values. The form prints "Legal Guardian in case of orphan/Guru in case of Third Gender" as a single line alongside Father/Mother/Husband/Wife, but this schema models it as two separate enum values (legal_guardian_orphan, guru_third_gender) rather than one combined value, since a legal guardian and a Guru are genuinely different relationships to the applicant despite sharing a printed line — the same discipline au/aec/voter-enrolment used splitting its citizenshipStatus branches by underlying AcroForm field grouping rather than printed line breaks alone.
• Comb-style digit-box date collapsed to one field. dateOfBirth is printed as eight single-digit boxes (d d / m m / y y y y); modelled as a single ISO date field, per this registry's existing comb-field convention (e.g. au/aec/voter-enrolment, nz/dia/passport-renewal-adult).
• hasAadhaar, hasDisability, and hasFamilyMemberAlreadyEnrolled are inferred gating booleans, not named form fields, for hasDisability and hasFamilyMemberAlreadyEnrolled specifically — Item 9 and Item 10 are simply left blank when not applicable, with no printed yes/no tick-box. hasAadhaar is a printed tick-box choice (Item 5(a) vs 5(b)), so that one directly reflects the form; the other two follow this registry's convention (mirroring au/aec/voter-enrolment's nameChanged/addressChanged) of adding an explicit boolean gate where GovSchema's visibleWhen/requiredWhen grammar needs one but the paper form does not print one.
• ageProofDocumentType / residenceProofDocumentType each include an other option, matching the form's own "if none of the above documents is available, specify" fallback (Item 7(b)(ii), Item 8(b)(ii)). Choosing other triggers a required free-text document name and, per the form and guidelines, obliges the applicant to undergo field verification by an officer designated by the ERO — documented in each field's description as a business-process consequence, not modelled as a further schema field since it is an ERO-side workflow step, not applicant-supplied data.
• disabilityPercentage modelled as number, unconstrained beyond 0–100. The form prints a blank "___%" with no minimum granularity specified.
• ordinarilyResidentSinceMonthYear modelled as a constrained string (MM/YYYY), not a date type. The form asks only for month and year ("mention month and year"), with no day component, so a full ISO date would overspecify precision the source form does not collect.
• No documents[] payment entry. Registration carries no fee; the ECI states enrolment is free of cost, consistent with how this registry omits a payment-category document when a process is free (e.g. au/aec/voter-enrolment).

Out of scope

• Form 7 (objection to inclusion of a name, or claim contesting another entry) — a distinct ECI form for a different process, not modelled here.
• Form 8 (correction of entries in an existing elector's record, shifting of residence within the same Assembly Constituency, replacement EPIC, or marking an existing elector as a Person with Disability) and Form 8A (transposition of an existing entry within the same Assembly Constituency) — both amend an existing electoral-roll entry rather than create a first-time one, and use different field sets.
• Overseas-elector and service-elector registration — each uses its own distinct ECI form (respectively for citizens residing abroad and for service personnel/their spouses), not examined here.
• Roll removal/deletion and objection processes — distinct ECI processes, not modelled here.

Re-verification

Per the practice's cadence, nextReviewBy is set to 2027-01-03 (6 months). Re-fetch both PDFs to check for a form-version update, and attempt a live walkthrough of voters.eci.gov.in's Form 6 wizard; if successful, promote status to verified.