SC Has Not Approved Changes, Modifications in Form 6; Chief Justice Remarks

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected assertions that it had validated the altered Form 6 used for voter enrolment, seeking primary Commission files to ascertain who authorised modifications during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issuing notice on petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar noted that the top court had never approved any revised declarations attached to the voter registration form.

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let us be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it," Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during court proceedings, directly contradicting statements issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Bench Questions Form 6 Revisions and Demands Internal Records

The dispute over Form 6—the statutory application for inclusion of names in the electoral roll—stems from an additional declaration requirement introduced during the SIR exercise. The new clause mandated that fresh applicants declare whether they, their parents, or their grandparents were mapped in previous revision records.

While the ECI claimed in a September 26 press note that its additional SIR declaration had been upheld by the apex court under a May 27 judgment concerning Bihar, the Bench clarified that the modified declaration was introduced after that verdict and was never subjected to judicial review.

Hearing a petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the Supreme Court ordered the submission of official ECI files to verify whether operational changes to Form 6 and other SIR protocols were executed with the unanimity of the full multi-member commission or decided unilaterally by the CEC.

Apex Court Issues Notice, Rejects Plea to Suspend CEC

During arguments, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to direct prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials for alleged breach of official duty.

The petitioner sought the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, alongside IT experts, to examine the alleged procedural lapses and quash decisions taken without full commission consent.

Although CJI Surya Kant described the prayers as "omnibus" and "jumbled up," the Bench agreed to examine the procedural integrity of the decisions. The court issued notice to the Union Government and the ECI, tagging the petition with related matters challenging internal decision-making within the poll panel. However, the apex court declined to pass any interim orders staying the decisions or suspending the CEC without evaluating official responses.

Unanimity in Multi-Member Commission Under Scrutiny

The court proceedings follow reports that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, registered formal objections to at least 14 decisions executed between October 2025 and August 2026. The petitioners argue that the 2023 statutory framework governing the ECI requires collective consensus under Section 18, rendering unilateral administrative actions legally unsustainable.

The Bench indicated that if primary records confirm that decisions lacked mandatory concurrence or statutory sanction, those specific orders could face judicial reconsideration. The Supreme Court will hear the matter after the ECI and Union Government file their written submissions.