The Supreme Court on Monday unequivocally clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the new Form 6 declaration required for voter registration, pushing back against the Election Commission of India's claim that the court had upheld the form. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, stated orally that the new Form 6 was not in existence when the May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment was delivered, and therefore the court had not adjudicated on its validity.

The clarification came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Priya Mishra, which raised concerns over the Election Commission's implementation of the revised Form 6. Advocate Narendra Mishra , appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the Chief Justice had earlier this month denied the ECI's assertion that the Supreme Court had upheld the new form. "On 5 October , it was already declared by this court, Form 6 is not approved by Court. But ECI said it was approved by Supreme Court . With regard to this, I am seeking..." the advocate submitted.

Justice Bagchi responded sharply, stating, "There is no adjudication on the new Form 6. That is all we have said. Whether approved or not approved.." The Chief Justice then cautioned the counsels not to pick up words, and Justice Bagchi further clarified: "What the Hon'ble Chief Justice said was that when the Bihar SIR judgment was delivered, new Form 6 was not there. That does not either say it is approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court . We will examine it."

Court Rejects ECI's Interpretation

The Supreme Court's oral observations effectively reject the Election Commission's September 26 press release, which had claimed that the Apex Court had upheld the new Form 6 declaration in the May 2026 judgment relating to Bihar's Special Integrated Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The press release was issued after The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had objected to the changes, arguing that they could not be implemented without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The new Form 6 requires persons seeking to register as new voters to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR—a declaration that was not required in the earlier Form 6 used in other states. This change had become a flashpoint, with critics alleging that it could disenfranchise genuine voters, particularly those displaced or missed during the revision.

The Disputed Declaration and Its Implications

The controversy over the revised Form 6 highlights a deeper tension between the Election Commission and the legal framework governing electoral registration. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, lays down the procedure for enrolling voters, and any change to the prescribed form typically requires a rule amendment by the Central Government. The reported dissent by two Election Commissioners suggests that the commission itself was divided over the legality of the new declaration.

By clarifying that it has not approved the form, the Supreme Court has put the onus back on the ECI to justify its decision. The court agreed to issue notice on the petition and listed the matter for further hearing on October 27, along with connected petitions challenging the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This procedural step means the court will now examine the validity of the new Form 6 in detail.

Petitioner’s Challenge and Court’s Response

Priya Mishra’s petition, filed in the public interest, argues that the new Form 6 declaration is arbitrary and goes beyond the powers of the Election Commission. The petitioner contends that the requirement to state whether the applicant or their parents were mapped in an earlier SIR has no statutory basis and could be used to exclude eligible voters. The court has not yet issued a formal order on the merits but has signaled that it will scrutinize the form.

During the hearing, the bench appeared focused on ensuring that its earlier remarks were not misrepresented. Justice Bagchi’s emphatic clarification—that the Bihar SIR judgment did not consider the new Form 6 because it did not exist at the time—underscores that the court’s silence on the issue cannot be interpreted as approval. The remark also serves as a caution to the ECI against relying on judicial pronouncements out of context.

Next Steps and Legal Outlook

With the Supreme Court set to hear the matter on October 27, legal observers expect the court to examine whether the new Form 6 violates the Registration of Electors Rules or the constitutional mandate for free and fair elections. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for the electoral roll revision process, especially if the court finds that the ECI acted without proper legal authority.

For now, the Election Commission has been put on notice that it cannot claim judicial endorsement for a form that the court has not seen. The coming hearings will likely focus on the scope of the ECI’s rule-making power and the safeguards needed to prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement. The case also dovetails with broader challenges to the commission’s functioning, including the petition against CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment, which is also scheduled for the same day.

As the October 27 deadline approaches, both the ECI and the petitioners will be preparing to argue the legality of the new voter registration declaration. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures that the issue will receive judicial scrutiny before it can take effect on a larger scale.