उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह स्पष्ट किया है कि उसने मतदाता सूची संशोधन के लिए प्रयुक्त फॉर्म 6 (Form 6) में निर्वाचन आयोग (Election Commission of India) द्वारा किए गए परिवर्तनों को मंजूरी नहीं दी है तथा न्यायालय यह देखने के लिए प्रशासनिक रिकॉर्ड की जांच करेगा कि यह संशोधन किसने किया था।
NEW DELHI — In a significant development concerning voter registration procedures and administrative accountability, the Supreme Court of India on Monday orally clarified that it has not approved any modifications to Form 6, the statutory document used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued the clarification while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition. The petition seeks judicial scrutiny and action regarding administrative decision-making processes within the Election Commission of India (ECI), specifically during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists.
The Court’s oral observation directly counters a recent public statement issued by the election watchdog and puts a spotlight on the procedural rules governing statutory form alterations in India.
The Controversy Surrounding Form 6
Form 6 is the official application form prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It allows first-time voters and eligible citizens to enroll their names on electoral lists across the country.
During the execution of the Special Intensive Revision exercise, an additional declaration clause was incorporated into Form 6. This new field required applicants seeking registration to declare whether their name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, had appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll.
Legal experts and civil society groups raised immediate concerns regarding this modification:
- Statutory Non-Compliance: Opponents argue that statutory forms created under parliamentary rules cannot be modified through executive or administrative notifications without formally amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Access Barriers for First-Time Voters: Concerns were highlighted that requiring historical lineage details creates an arbitrary hurdle for young applicants and families lacking documentation from previous revision eras.
- Technical Enforceability: Reports submitted before the court indicated that applicants using the online registration portal were unable to submit Form 6 without filling in the additional declaration, despite the requirement not being formally designated as mandatory.
The Judicial Clarification
During Monday's proceedings, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, brought the modified form requirements to the Bench's attention, citing recent implementation instances in various jurisdictions, including Delhi.
In response to these submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant firmly stated the Court's position regarding judicial authorization of the updated document:
"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."
The Bench's remarks address a public press note released by the Election Commission on September 26. In that statement, the commission asserted that the extra declaration attached to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision had been upheld by the apex court in its May 2026 judgment concerning revision procedures in Bihar.
The Supreme Court’s latest statements establish that while previous judgments addressed the broader scope of administrative authority to collect voter verification details, the Court did not grant blanket authorization to modify the statutory layout or operational requirements of Form 6 itself.
Internal Dissent and Public Interest Petition
The PIL before the Supreme Court was filed following media reports alleging internal procedural irregularities within the Election Commission. Reports indicated that decisions surrounding the Special Intensive Revision—including the insertion of the Form 6 declaration—were undertaken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite documented reservations expressed by fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Internal communications cited during the proceedings suggest that the dissenting commissioners had cautioned against altering statutory forms without following the standard rule-making procedure prescribed under federal legislation.
The Supreme Court has indicated it will examine the formal administrative records to trace the procedural history of the modification and determine whether statutory protocols were breached.
Implications for Electoral Administration
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the delicate balance between administrative measures designed to maintain clean electoral rolls and the constitutional right of citizens to register as voters without unnecessary procedural friction.
By requiring the production of administrative records, the apex court has signaled strict adherence to statutory frameworks governing electoral laws. As proceedings move forward, the case is expected to establish crucial precedents regarding:
- The limits of executive discretion in altering statutory registration formats.
- The internal decision-making consensus required among members of the Election Commission.
- The legal standard for digital voter enrollment portals to ensure mandatory fields do not exceed statutory mandates.
The apex court is scheduled to continue hearing arguments once official records detailing the modification approval process are formally submitted by the relevant authorities.
Description: The Supreme Court of India orally clarified on Monday that it has not approved any modification to Form 6 used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for voter registration during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant contradicted a recent ECI statement claiming the apex court had upheld an additional declaration attached to the form.
The added clause required applicants to state family electoral history, creating potential hurdles for first-time voters. The clarification came during a Public Interest Litigation hearing challenging alleged unilateral decisions by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Supreme Court signaled it will examine official administrative records to determine how the unauthorized changes occurred.