New Delhi, Oct. 13 -- The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had never adjudicated the validity of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) new Form 6 - the statutory application for voter registration - as the modified version was not in existence when the court examined the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar earlier this year. The court's clarification puts to rest a controversy over the form, with the Election Commission suggesting in a release on September 26 that the apex court had signed off on the new form; the poll body doubled down on the claim on October 5. On Monday, the court said that its earlier observations could not be construed as a judicial endorsement or rejection of the modified form, if any, and agreed to examine the issue after it was brought to its notice. "Observations made by this court does not amount to constitutional adjudication. There has been no adjudication on the new Form 6 and that is all we have said," a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, told a counsel, appearing for a fresh writ petition, on Monday. "Whether approved or not approved.that was not there. Do not put words in our mouth," the bench added. Justice Bagchi further clarified that the CJI's October 5 remarks only meant that the modified form did not exist when the court delivered its judgment on the Bihar SIR. "That does not say whether approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court," he said. To be sure, HT pointed out in its report on the court's October 5 observation that the Supreme Court could have not approved the new annexure to the form when it delivered its judgement on the Bihar SIR simply because the annexure did not exist at the time. The bench said it would examine the issue now that it had been brought to its notice and directed that the matter be listed with the batch of petitions relating to the SIR, scheduled for October 27 when the bench will also take up a wider challenge to the functioning of ECI and the manner in which decisions concerning the electoral-roll revision exercise have been taken. The clarification follows the court's October 5 remarks, when the bench said it had not approved any modification to Form 6 and sought records to ascertain who had authorised the changes and what they entailed. The court had issued notice on a petition challenging alleged modifications to the online form available on the ECI's ECINet/ERONet portal. The controversy centres on an additional declaration requiring applicants to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR. The declaration was introduced in the online registration process during the ongoing revision exercise, raising questions about its legal basis and its implications for first-time voters and those seeking to re-enter electoral rolls. In a September 26 press note, ECI said the additional declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court, adding that the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would continue to apply outside the SIR period. The Commission has maintained that the statutory form itself was not altered and that the additional declaration was an addendum specifically for the revision exercise. 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. However, the additional declaration now appended to Form 6 was only introduced subsequently. 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. 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 distinction is central to the legal challenge. Form 6 is prescribed under the 1960 rules for people seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. Under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Centre frames these rules in consultation with the ECI, and changes to the rules must follow the prescribed statutory process. The petitions in the top court raise questions about whether an additional declaration could be imposed through an online form without amending the underlying rules. The requirement also has practical consequences. A young person applying to register as a voter may never have appeared in an earlier SIR roll, while applicants whose names were deleted and who are seeking re-enrolment could face questions about establishing the required family linkage. The legality and scope of the additional declaration therefore bear directly on the process through which eligible citizens are included in electoral rolls. On October 5, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who has challenged the alleged changes, told the bench that two new conditions had been introduced into Form 6. The court made clear that it had not sanctioned the changes and said it wanted the underlying records before reaching any conclusion. According to an Indian Express report last month, 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....