Back
Supreme Court says it did not approve Form 6 changes, contradicting ECI's SIR claim
The on Monday delivered a significant oral clarification that directly contradicted the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) earlier assertion that modifications to Form 6, the statutory form for new voter registration, had been judicially approved. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, categorically stated that no modified version of Form 6 had been sanctioned by the court. The remark came during the hearing of a that questioned the authority of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar to unilaterally take decisions—including the contested Form 6 changes—without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
The court’s observation has serious implications for the ongoing of electoral rolls across multiple states. The ECI had, in a press note, claimed that the additional declaration attached to Form 6 during the SIR exercise had been “upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” However, the Chief Justice expressly disavowed that position, stating, “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.” This blunt repudiation has thrown into question the legal basis on which the ECI introduced the extra eligibility requirement for first-time voters.
Background: The Form 6 Modification Controversy
Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the , and is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls. During the SIR, the ECI introduced an additional declaration requiring applicants to disclose whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared on an electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR. Critics argued that this created an unjustified hurdle for first-time voters, particularly those from marginalised communities whose families may not have been previously enrolled. Questions were also raised about whether the ECI could alter a statutory form without following the prescribed procedure for amending the underlying rules.
The requirement reportedly drew internal objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who are said to have flagged the lack of a formal rule amendment. The controversy deepened when it emerged that applicants could not submit the online Form 6 without responding to the declaration, even though it was not explicitly marked as mandatory. The ECI, for its part, maintained that Form 6 itself had not been amended; the declaration was an additional requirement applicable only during the SIR period.
Court’s Oral Observation and Its Immediate Impact
During Monday’s hearing, , appearing for the petitioner, specifically drew the court’s attention to the changes in Form 6. The Chief Justice promptly clarified that the court had not approved any such modifications and indicated that it would examine the records to determine who had authorised the changes. This statement directly contradicts the ECI’s public defence, which relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning the SIR exercise in Bihar. In that judgment, the court considered the ECI’s power to require additional documentation during revision of electoral rolls. However, the additional declaration attached to Form 6 was introduced after that judgment, meaning the earlier ruling could not have been a blanket approval.
The bench also issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre on petitions that flagged several decisions allegedly taken by the CEC without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners. The court warned that it would examine each such decision and annul any found to be contrary to law. Notably, the court declined an interim request to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar from taking further decisions, observing that suspending the CEC could stall the functioning of the Election Commission, especially with upcoming elections.
Dissent Within the Election Commission and Wider Political Fallout
The PIL and the accompanying controversy have laid bare an unusual public rift within the Election Commission. Reports citing The Indian Express indicated that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected to several of Kumar’s decisions, including the Form 6 declaration. The court’s observations have emboldened opposition parties, who have accused CEC Kumar of acting unilaterally to help the ruling party. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asserted that “it is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally,” and called for accountability. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge listed three “non-negotiable demands”: resignation of the CEC, annulment of the SIR, and a return to ballot paper voting.
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut went further, labelling the CEC an “enemy of the country” and alleging that he had “gone underground” amidst the protests. Opposition MPs have announced a march to the ECI office in New Delhi.
A Sitting Judge’s Broader Critique of Disenfranchisement
Adding to the legal weight of the controversy, a separate but related development occurred over the weekend. Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while delivering an address at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, remarked that any process that disenfranchises millions of citizens is “ and a .” Without directly naming the SIR, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that the Constitution cannot create two classes of citizens—one with voting rights and another without. He stressed that , which guarantees , cannot be tampered with, and that “no amount of whataboutery” can justify stripping citizens of their voting rights.
Though Justice Bhuyan was not part of the bench hearing the Form 6 matter, his remarks have resonated strongly within legal and political circles. Opposition parties, including the Congress and the Trinamool Congress, have seized upon his words to demand the CEC’s resignation. Mahua Moitra described it as “a first when a sitting judge speaks truth to power.”
Legal Analysis: What Does This Mean for the ECI and Future Elections?
The Supreme Court’s oral disavowal of the Form 6 modifications carries significant legal implications. First, it undermines the ECI’s claim of judicial backing, which the commission had used to defend the additional declaration. If the court ultimately finds that the alterations to Form 6 were made without legal authority—either because they violated the Registration of Electors Rules or because they were not approved by the full commission—those modifications could be struck down. This would render many voter applications submitted under the SIR potentially defective, raising questions about the validity of the entire revision process.
Second, the court’s willingness to examine and annul decisions taken unilaterally by the CEC could set a precedent for judicial oversight of the internal functioning of the Election Commission. The Chief Justice’s comment that “if there is any violation, we can very well undo it” indicates a readiness to enforce the principle of within the commission, as mandated by the Constitution and the .
From a broader perspective, the controversy highlights the tension between administrative efficiency and procedural legality. The SIR, intended to clean up electoral rolls, may have been implemented in a manner that disenfranchised legitimate voters. The legal community will be watching closely to see whether the court’s eventual order requires the ECI to redo the SIR process using only the original, unmodified Form 6, and whether any consequences will follow for the CEC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s unambiguous statement that it did not approve the modified Form 6 has placed the Election Commission in a difficult position. As the court prepares to examine the records and decide on the validity of decisions taken without full commission approval, the future of the Special Intensive Revision hangs in the balance. With opposition parties mobilising and a sitting judge’s strong words on disenfranchisement echoing across the legal landscape, this case has become a flashpoint in India’s electoral governance. For legal professionals, the case raises fundamental questions about the limits of administrative discretion, the sanctity of statutory forms, and the accountability of constitutional authorities.
