‘Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us’: Supreme Court seeks records from EC on voter form changes

The modified online version required applicants to provide details of whether their parents or grandparents appeared in a previous SIR electoral roll.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it had not approved a modified Form 6 –– the statutory application used by citizens to register as voters –– days after the Election Commission of India (ECI) stated that a controversial additional declaration appended to Form 6 for the special intensive revision of electoral rolls (SIR)  had been upheld by the apex court.

The Supreme Court sought clarity on who authorised the changes in Form 6. (ANI)

The court issued notice on a plea challenging alleged changes made to the form on the ECINet/ERONet portal during the ongoing SIR.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When records will be produced, we would like to see who and what has modified,” said a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, signalling that the court would examine the records to determine who authorised the changes and the nature of changes, if any.

Court seeks records on alleged changes to voter form

To be sure, ECI was likely referring to the Supreme Court’s May judgment concerning the SIR exercise in Bihar, in which the court examined the commission’s authority to call for additional documents while revising electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi accuses ECI of acting illegally

The court’s clarification was immediately picked up by the Opposition with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi saying, “It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally. This is just one more proof of him abusing his position to help the BJP. He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable.”

ECI responded hours later, calling the statement misleading.

“The order for SIR in Bihar issued on 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the commission. This order has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026. In its press note No. 120 dated 26 September 2026, in point 1(iii), ECI has stated that, The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

To be sure, interpretation of the May 2026 order appeared key in the reasoning part of that judgment, the top court had said, “It is true that Form 6, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, sets out a framework of documentation; however, the same is tailored to the process of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) of the RP Act and may not, in all situations, be capable of literal application to an exercise of the present nature. The commission, therefore, retains a degree of residual authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a Special Intensive Revision. Such authority, however, is not unbounded. In devising such a framework, the Commission must remain cognisant of the existing statutory scheme, and any departure therefrom must be informed by a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The formulation of the documentation regime must thus reflect a calibrated balance in drawing from the statutory framework, while adapting it, where necessary, to effectively serve the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll.”

Bihar SIR declaration did not include ancestry details

The 2025 ECI order on Bihar SIR referred to an Annexure D, which was a declaration form to be submitted by those filling Form 6. To be sure, that form didn’t ask for any details of an applicant’s parents’ SIR verification. These additional changes were first reported in July this year.

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenging the alleged modifications, including additional requirements relating to an applicant’s ancestry and declarations concerning the previous SIR.

The court’s intervention came amid a wider challenge to the functioning of ECI and the manner in which decisions concerning the electoral-roll revision exercise have been taken.

On Monday, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, told the bench that the manner in which SIR had been conducted in Delhi raised concerns over the voter-registration process and claimed that two new conditions had been introduced into Form 6.

The bench, however, immediately clarified that it had not sanctioned any such alteration. “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear,” said the CJI, adding the court wanted the underlying records before reaching any conclusion on the alleged modification.

What is the Form 6 controversy?

Form 6 is the statutory application prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, for a person seeking inclusion of their name in an electoral roll. The controversy centres on an additional declaration that was introduced in the online version of the form during the SIR exercise.

The modified online version required applicants to declare whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR. The declaration was required to be furnished before an applicant could complete the online registration process.

A gist of Form 6 controversies.

The change assumed significance because of the large number of first-time voters and existing electors seeking inclusion in rolls being revised through SIR.

A person who has recently turned 18, for instance, would ordinarily not have appeared in an electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR conducted decades ago. The requirement therefore potentially required such an applicant to establish a link through the name of a parent or grandparent, where applicable.

Different versions

According to an Indian Express report, election commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections, arguing that Form 6 was prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and could not be altered merely by changing the online version without following the statutory procedure.

Under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Centre frames the Registration of Electors Rules in consultation with the Election Commission. Amendments to the rules are required to be notified and laid before Parliament.

ECI, however, has maintained that the statutory Form 6 itself was not altered and that the additional declaration was introduced specifically for the SIR exercise through an addendum.

The Commission subsequently clarified that the additional declaration would apply during the SIR period, while the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the 1960 rules would be used outside the exercise.

The additional declaration was also withdrawn from the online form in states and Union territories where the SIR exercise had been completed, with applicants there reverting to the statutory Form 6.

SC asks for records

During Monday’s hearing, Guruswamy pointed to the impact of the SIR exercise in Delhi and West Bengal and said that a large number of appeals were pending before appellate tribunals. She claimed that about 1.6 million appeals were pending and that persons affected by the exercise had already been excluded from one election cycle.

The bench, however, said the prayers in Tripathi’s petition appeared to be “jumbled up” and asked counsel to examine them.

Guruswamy said the petition also challenged the manner in which the Election Commission was functioning as a national constitutional institution. “We have grown with free and fair elections but they do not exist today,” she submitted.

The bench again asked her to look at the prayers in the petition.

Guruswamy then sought that the matter be tagged with another petition challenging alleged unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The court agreed and directed that Tripathi’s petition be tagged with that matter.

The separate petition by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh alleges that the CEC took several decisions unilaterally despite objections from the other two election commissioners. The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to ECI, Centre, the CEC and ECs in that case but declined to pass an interim order restraining Kumar from functioning.

The Election Commission has disputed the allegations concerning its functioning and maintained that decisions were taken in accordance with the law.