Modified Form 6 not approved by us: Supreme Court's big remark

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved changes to Form 6, used for new voter registration, and sought records to determine who modified the form. The court's remark came amid a row over the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

In Short

• CJI Surya Kant says court will check records to find who altered Form 6
• Dispute centres on additional SIR declaration linking voters to previous rolls
• Supreme Court refuses to pass interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar amid SIR row

The Supreme Court on Monday said it had not approved any modified Form 6, which is used by the Election Commission (EC) to register new voters. The court's comment came in the context of a huge controversy over an annexure that was introduced in the form in 2025.

Interestingly, in a September 28 statement responding to the row, the Election Commission had said that the declaration attached to Form 6 had been "upheld" by the Supreme Court.

However, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said the court wanted to examine the record to determine who had made the changes. “Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear,” he said.

“When the record is produced, we want to see who has modified the Form 6,” he said.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to pass any interim order to suspend Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that he took decisions unilaterally without the consensus of the two other Election Commissioners. The bench said it would presume that the EC's decisions were in accordance with the law until it received a response.

"The report might be accurate or inaccurate, but we cannot pass an order based on that... We must await their response," CJI Kant said.

ABOUT THE FORM 6 ROW

At the heart of the controversy is an additional declaration in the online registration process requiring new voters to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to an earlier electoral roll during the SIR exercise.

The row gained momentum after an Indian Express report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to the additional requirement. Their concern, according to the report, was that Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and cannot effectively be altered without formally amending the rules.

The origins of the dispute go back to the EC's June 2025 SIR order, which prescribed an additional declaration, known as Annexure D, alongside Form 6 for new enrolments during the revision exercise.

However, the requirement now under scrutiny appeared later in the online Form 6 process. Introduced in July 2026, it asked applicants to provide information linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to previous SIR electoral rolls.

The timing has become significant because the online requirement was introduced weeks after the Supreme Court delivered its May 27 judgment on the Bihar SIR.

The EC has maintained that Form 6 itself was not modified and that the SIR declaration was an additional requirement. In its September statement, the poll panel said the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would continue to apply during “non-SIR” periods.

The EC has since removed the additional SIR-linked declaration from the Form 6 process in states where the revision exercise has concluded.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY EARLIER?

In its May 27 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the EC's authority to conduct the SIR in Bihar and examined the documentation framework prescribed for the exercise.

The court held that Form 6 could not necessarily be applied “literally” to an SIR and said the poll panel retained “a degree of residual authority” to formulate an appropriate documentation framework for such an exercise.

However, the court made clear that this authority was “not unbounded”, holding that any departure from the statutory framework must have a “rational nexus” with the objective of the SIR.

WHAT IS THE OPPOSITION SAYING?

Opposition leaders have questioned the legality of the additional requirement and sought clarity on who authorised it.

Congress MP Rahul Gandhi alleged that the online Form 6 was changed illegally and questioned who authorised the change and who instructed TCS, which operates the relevant technology, to implement it.

Opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) have also opposed the SIR exercise and demanded Gyanesh Kumar's resignation. The CJP has announced another protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar on October 10 if Kumar does not resign.

- Ends