CJI says Supreme Court Didn't Approve Modified Form 6 Cited by EC in SIR

The Supreme Court on Monday said it had not approved any modified version of Form 6 being used to enrol new voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the court would examine the record to establish who had introduced the changes. The Election Commission claimed last week that the new declaration attached to the online Form 6 had been approved by the apex court.

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it," the CJI observed.

WHAT IS THE PLEA

The remarks came during a hearing on a plea by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who seeks prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials over alleged unilateral decisions on the SIR. He has also sought an independent judicial inquiry and the initiation of prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, raised concerns over the changes to Form 6, which eligible citizens use to apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls. The bench issued notice and tagged the plea with a similar matter challenging the Election Commission's decisions.

WHAT IS THE ROW ABOUT

The dispute concerns a new declaration attached to the online Form 6. It requires applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. The requirement was not part of the earlier Form 6 used during SIR exercises in other States.

The Election Commission has maintained that Form 6 itself has not been amended and that the declaration is an additional requirement that applies only during the SIR period.

Outside that period, it has said, registration would continue through forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Critics argue that a statutory form cannot be altered without amending the rules.

THE ELECTION COMMISSION'S DEFENCE

In a press note on September 26, the Commission said the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It said the SIR orders, including the Bihar order of June 24, 2025 and a later order for 12 States and Union Territories on October 27, 2025, had been issued with the unanimous approval of all three commissioners.

Those orders provided for an additional declaration form to accompany Form 6, which the Commission says spares applicants from submitting other documents.

That defence has been questioned. Reports in the legal press say the specific declaration now under dispute was not the one the court examined in its Bihar SIR judgment, which dealt with a simpler declaration of age, residence and citizenship.

The Indian Express reported that the change to the online form was made after that judgment was delivered.

DISSENT WITHIN THE COMMISSION

The Indian Express also reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded dissent over aspects of the exercise. Sandhu is reported to have put on record on August 13 that the change to Form 6 was "unauthorised and illegal" and should be removed. The Commission's press note did not mention those objections.

The Commission has since removed the additional declaration from the online Form 6 in States where the SIR has been completed, according to reports.

THE COURT'S EARLIER POSITION

The Supreme Court has so far backed the Commission's wider powers over verification. In November, during the final hearing on pleas against the SIR, the same bench said the poll panel has inherent authority to determine the correctness of entries in Form 6.

It rejected an argument that the Commission was a "post office" bound to accept every form submitted. Petitioners, however, have argued that the SIR is unprecedented because it asks voters to furnish documentary proof of citizenship for enrolment.

With inputs from ANI