New Delhi, Oct. 6 -- The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 -- the statutory application used by citizens to register as voters -- days after the Election Commission of India (ECI), in a September 26 press note, stated that the additional declaration appended to Form 6 for the special intensive revision of electoral rolls (SIR) had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The court issued notice on a plea challenging alleged changes made to the form on the Election Commission's ECINet/ERONet portal during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. "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 Surya Kant, signalling that the court would examine the records to determine who authorised the changes and the nature of changes, if any. The court's clarification appeared to contradict ECI's claims. "The declaration attached to Form 6 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," ECI said in the September 26 release. 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. 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 the Election Commission 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. 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. 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. The additional declaration also raised questions over voters whose names had been excluded during the revision process and who subsequently sought re-enrolment. The issue has also triggered a dispute within the Election Commission over whether the additional declaration amounted to a modification of the statutory Form 6. 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. The Election Commission, 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. 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 the Election Commission, 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 law....