A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant clarified that there has been no adjudication on the modified Form 6 used in the Special Intensive Revision. The ECI had earlier claimed that the Court upheld the declaration attached to the form.

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 (used for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls) used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating that the Court had not adjudicated upon the modified form.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the clarification after a petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier stated that the modified Form 6 had not been approved by it, while the Election Commission had claimed that the declaration attached to the form had been upheld by the Court.
“There is no adjudication on the new Form 6,” Justice Bagchi clarified.
Explaining the context of the earlier observation, he said the Chief Justice had pointed out that the modified Form 6 was not available when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Bihar SIR case.
“That does not say it is either approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court,” Justice Bagchi said.
The Chief Justice cautioned against interpreting the Court's observations beyond what had actually been stated.
“Please don't pick words for news item,” the CJI remarked.
The clarification came while the Court was hearing a public interest litigation seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions concerning the SIR exercise and changes to the electoral-roll system.
What happened in the Courtroom?
During Monday's hearing, counsel appearing for the PIL petitioner referred to the Supreme Court's earlier observations (CJI Suryakant’s remark) and submitted that the Court had already indicated that the modified Form 6 was not approved by it.
The counsel pointed out that the ECI had taken a contrary position, claiming that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Responding to the submission, Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court had not adjudicated upon the modified form.
He explained that the earlier observation of the CJI concerned the fact that the modified Form 6 was not available when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Bihar SIR exercise. The observation could not be read as a judicial determination either approving or disapproving the subsequently modified form.
The clarification is significant because the distinction between the Supreme Court's earlier judgment on the Bihar SIR exercise and the specific modified Form 6 now under scrutiny has become central to the dispute.
What Had The Supreme Court Said Earlier?
On October 5, the CJI had orally observed that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 being used by the Election Commission during the SIR exercise.
“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” Chief Justice Surya Kant had said.
The observation came after Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, raised concerns about changes to the online Form 6 used during the SIR exercise.
The Bench had also indicated that it wanted to examine the Election Commission's records to ascertain who had introduced the changes.
The October 5 hearing took place against the backdrop of the ECI's September 26 press statement, which said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Commission had relied on the Court's May 27, 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR exercise to support its position.
Why Is The Modified Form 6 Controversial?
Form 6 is the application prescribed for individuals seeking inclusion of their names in electoral rolls as new voters. The present controversy concerns an additional declaration attached to the online version of Form 6 during the SIR exercise in certain states.
The declaration requires applicants to provide information regarding whether they or specified family members appeared in electoral rolls prepared during an earlier SIR exercise.
The issue also forms part of broader allegations concerning the decision-making process within the Election Commission and whether certain decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken unilaterally.
These allegations remain matters for consideration and should not be treated as established findings.
In its September 26 statement, the Election Commission said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The statement referred to the Court's May 27 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR, in which the Supreme Court considered the Election Commission's authority to prescribe appropriate documentation requirements for a special revision of electoral rolls.
The ECI's position was that the declaration used during the SIR exercise had judicial backing.
Tags: