Agencies | New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, the statutory application used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, contradicting the Election Commission’s recent assertion that an additional declaration attached to the form during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) had been upheld by the court.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record will be produced, we would like to see who has modified,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said during the hearing of petitions challenging the functioning and decision-making of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The three-judge bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing pleas that allege several decisions concerning the electoral-roll revision process were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. The court sought responses from the Election Commission, the Centre, the CEC and other concerned authorities, but did not pass an interim order against Kumar.
Form 6 is the statutory application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls, including first-time voters who have attained the age of 18.
The controversy concerns an additional declaration that was added to the online version of Form 6 during the SIR exercise. The added section sought information on whether the applicant, or their parents or grandparents, appeared in the electoral roll of the previous SIR.
Reports have pointed out that while the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 was not formally amended, an additional section appeared on the Election Commission’s online portal.
The issue has also triggered disagreement within the Election Commission.
According to documents reported by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections to changes concerning Form 6. The objections included the view that the statutory form could not be altered without corresponding amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu later described the alteration as “unauthorised/illegal” and called for its removal, according to the reported documents.
The matter subsequently became part of the broader legal challenge concerning the functioning of the Election Commission and the decision-making process followed during the SIR exercise.
The controversy intensified after the Election Commission, in a September 26 statement, said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The poll panel had also said that forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used during non-SIR periods.
The Supreme Court’s clarification on Monday, however, was specifically that no modified Form 6 had been approved by it. The court indicated that it wanted to examine the official records and determine who had made the modification.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, while arguing one of the petitions, referred to the reported changes in the online Form 6 and alleged that the modifications had been made without the required legal authority.
Responding to the submissions, CJI Surya Kant made clear that the court had not approved the modification and indicated that the records would be examined once placed before the bench.
The clarification does not by itself determine who authorised or carried out the change. That issue remains subject to examination by the court.
The Form 6 controversy forms part of a broader challenge before the Supreme Court concerning the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and allegations regarding the functioning of the Election Commission under CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The petitions question whether decisions related to the SIR were taken collectively by the three-member Election Commission. Reports have also highlighted objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi over several decisions linked to the exercise.
The Election Commission, for its part, has maintained that differences of opinion within the institution do not invalidate its functioning and has defended the decision-making process.
The Supreme Court’s Monday hearing therefore places the focus not only on the modified Form 6 but also on the larger questions of procedure, institutional decision-making and the legal authority governing changes to electoral documents.
For now, the court has sought the relevant records and responses from the concerned authorities, leaving the questions surrounding the modification and the broader allegations to be examined in the ongoing proceedings.
