NEW DELHI, Oct. 12 -- The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 declaration used for registering new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that the revised declaration did not exist when it delivered its judgment on the Bihar SIR exercise in May 2026. The court said the validity of the changes remained open for judicial examination.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing a petition challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken several decisions without securing the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. The bench issued notice on the petition and scheduled the matter for October 27, along with connected petitions concerning the Chief Election Commissioner.
���������� ������������������ �������������� ��������������
During the hearing, advocate Narendra Mishra, appearing for petitioner Priya Mishra, referred to the Chief Justice's observations on October 5 that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6. He argued that the Election Commission had suggested otherwise in its public statements.
Justice Bagchi intervened to clarify that the court had not yet adjudicated on the revised declaration and that its earlier observations should not be interpreted as a finding on its legality.
"There is no adjudication on the new Form 6. That is all we have said," Justice Bagchi observed.
The Chief Justice cautioned counsel against selectively interpreting the court's remarks. Justice Bagchi explained that the May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment could not have considered a declaration introduced after the ruling.
The bench made it clear that the absence of judicial approval did not automatically mean the modified declaration had been declared unlawful. Its validity would have to be examined separately on the basis of the applicable statutory framework and the material placed before the court.
���������������������� �������� ���������� ��������
The controversy concerns changes introduced to the declaration accompanying Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens seeking registration as voters. The revised declaration requires applicants to provide information linking themselves or their family members to electoral rolls prepared during an earlier SIR exercise.
The requirement has raised questions about whether additional declarations can be incorporated into the voter registration process without formally amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The issue intensified after reports emerged that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to the changes, reportedly arguing that the statutory procedure needed to be followed before introducing them.
On September 26, the Election Commission issued a statement suggesting that the declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court in its Bihar SIR judgment. However, the particular declaration now under challenge was introduced after that judgment.
During an October 5 hearing, the Chief Justice had stated that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified form and indicated that the bench would examine the relevant records to determine who had authorised the changes.
Monday's clarification distinguished between the court's earlier examination of the Bihar SIR framework and the legality of the subsequently introduced declaration.
�������� �������������� �������������������� ������������������
The petition, filed by Priya Mishra and former Madhya Pradesh Law Minister P C Sharma under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges that approximately 14 decisions were taken by the Chief Election Commissioner over 10 months without following the mandatory procedure for collective decision-making within the Election Commission.
The petitioners have argued that the ECI, being a three-member constitutional body, must function through collective deliberation and follow the applicable procedures governing decisions by its members.
According to the plea, certain orders, notifications, executive instructions and official communications were allegedly issued without the knowledge or concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. These claims have not been established by the court.
The petition refers to purported objections by Sandhu and Joshi and seeks judicial scrutiny of the circumstances in which the disputed decisions were taken.
The petitioners have requested the production of original records, including meeting agendas, minutes, voting records, dissenting notes, correspondence and files relating to the 14 decisions.
They have also sought directions to quash decisions allegedly taken in violation of the required procedure and to have them reconsidered in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory provisions.
���������������� ���� �������������� ��������������������
A central issue raised in the petition is whether the Election Commission possessed the authority to introduce additional declarations into the online voter registration process without amending the rules governing Form 6.
The petitioners contend that the revised requirements, including information about an applicant's or relatives' presence in previous electoral rolls, amount to substantive changes that require compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.
The court has not yet determined whether the revised declaration constitutes an impermissible modification of the statutory form or falls within the Election Commission's powers to prescribe documentation for electoral roll revision.
The distinction is significant because the Supreme Court's May judgment on the Bihar SIR exercise examined the legal framework then in operation, not every subsequent change introduced by the Commission.
�������� �������������� ���� �������������� ����
The bench agreed to issue notice and listed the petition for October 27 alongside connected proceedings involving Kumar.
The hearing will provide an opportunity to examine the legal basis for the revised Form 6 declaration and the allegations concerning decision-making within the Election Commission.
For now, the Supreme Court has expressly left the validity of the modified declaration undecided, clarifying that its Bihar SIR judgment cannot be treated as either an endorsement or a rejection of changes introduced after the ruling.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.