Back
Supreme Court Clarifies It Did Not Approve , Contradicts ECI Claim
In a significant development that has upended the 's (ECI) defence of its controversial changes to the voter registration process, the on Monday categorically stated that it had never approved any modified version of Form 6. The clarification came during the hearing of a writ petition seeking the prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar for allegedly taking unilateral decisions during the of .
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, made it clear that the apex court's earlier judgments upholding the SIR process did not extend to approving alterations to the
.
"Any
has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified,"
the Chief Justice observed, directly contradicting the ECI's press release of
, which claimed that the
"
for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
Background of the Form 6 Controversy
Form 6 is the statutory application used by eligible citizens to enrol as voters. The dispute centres on a new declaration added to the online version of Form 6 during the ongoing SIR process in several states. The revised declaration requires applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR—a requirement that did not exist in the earlier version used in other states. Critics argue that any change to a statutory form requires an amendment to the , which can only be done by the central government under .
The issue gained traction after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected to the changes, describing them as "unauthorised and illegal." Sandhu, in a written objection dated , reportedly stated that the modification could not be carried out without amending the rules. Despite these objections, the CEC proceeded with the revised Form 6, prompting the petitioner, advocate , to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Clarification
During the hearing, Senior Advocate
, appearing for the petitioner, raised concerns about the unilateral modifications to Form 6. The bench responded firmly, with CJI Surya Kant stating that the court had not approved any such changes. The Chief Justice also indicated that the court would examine the records to identify who made the modifications.
"When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,"
he reiterated.
The court's observation is particularly significant because the ECI had earlier claimed judicial backing for the new declaration. In its
press note, the Commission stated:
"The
for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used."
However, legal experts note that the Supreme Court's
judgment in the Bihar SIR case dealt only with the legality of the SIR process itself and did not examine the specific changes to Form 6 that were introduced later. The new declaration was reportedly implemented after the judgment was delivered.
Dissenting Voices Within the ECI
The controversy has also exposed deep rifts within the Election Commission. According to reports, Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi have recorded dissenting notes on at least 14 decisions taken by CEC Kumar over the past ten months. Their objections covered not only Form 6 but also other matters, including handling of voter data in Goa, appeals against inclusions in West Bengal, and access to the digital electoral roll database. Sandhu is said to have described the unilateral changes as "unauthorised and illegal" in his written objection.
Despite these internal disagreements, the ECI publicly downplayed the rift, stating that differences in views are a normal part of its deliberations. However, the petitions before the Supreme Court argue that the CEC acted without the required consensus, in violation of the constitutional scheme of a multi-member commission.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The Supreme Court's clarification has far-reaching legal implications. First, it undermines the ECI's defence that the has judicial approval. This could lead to challenges against the validity of enrolments made using the new form during the SIR. Second, the court's decision to issue notice on the petition and tag it with a similar matter suggests that it is willing to examine the legality of the CEC's unilateral actions. The petition seeks not only the quashing of the 14 decisions allegedly taken without concurrence but also the initiation of prosecution under , which punishes specified breaches of official duty in connection with .
The case also raises broader questions about the independence and functioning of the Election Commission. With the 2027 general elections approaching, the integrity of the electoral roll is paramount. If the SIR process is perceived as compromised by unilateral and potentially unlawful modifications, public confidence in the electoral process could be eroded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's unequivocal statement that it did not approve any has handed a significant setback to the Election Commission's narrative. As the court prepares to examine the records to determine who altered the statutory form, the spotlight remains firmly on CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the internal discord within the poll panel. The next hearing, which will be heard alongside other similar petitions, is expected to provide further clarity on the legality of the changes and the accountability of the officials involved. For the legal community and the public alike, this case underscores the importance of procedural propriety in the conduct of elections and the need for robust judicial oversight.
