SC says it did not approve Form 6 changes, seeks EC response
The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 used by the Election Commission during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and sought records from the poll panel to establish who made the changes.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the court wanted to examine the records concerning the modifications.
"Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it," the bench said.
Form 6 is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls.
The court was hearing a PIL filed in the wake of a recent Indian Express report alleging that two of the three Election Commissioners had objected to decisions relating to the SIR, including changes to Form 6 concerning an applicant's ancestry and linkage to a previous SIR.
The bench was hearing a plea by Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenging decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the other two commissioners.
During the hearing, senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, raised concerns over the changes to Form 6. The bench, however, observed that the prayers in the PIL appeared to be "jumbled up".
The Election Commission had issued a press release on September 26 suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration in its May 2026 judgment relating to the Bihar SIR.
The bench issued notice on Tripathi's plea and tagged it with another PIL filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh on the issue.
Tripathi, through advocate Chand Qureshi, has alleged that the CEC's actions violated the statutory requirement of collective decision-making.
The plea seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for alleged breach of official duty. It also argues that the CEC is accountable under law in the absence of statutory or constitutional immunity.
The petitioner has relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for decision-making by the Election Commission and says that where there is a difference of opinion, the majority view prevails.
A key issue raised in the plea is the alleged alteration of Form 6 through the election panel's software. The petitioner claims that requirements relating to ancestral details and linkage with a previous SIR were introduced without the statutory procedure required for amending the prescribed electoral form.
According to the plea, the two Election Commissioners other than Kumar objected to the changes and maintained that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory process.
The petition seeks a declaration that decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly initiated, approved or implemented without concurrence of the full commission or contrary to the majority view are unconstitutional and void.
The plea also raises concerns over electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal.
In Goa, it alleges that the software lacked a mechanism to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification.
In West Bengal, the petitioner has claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission's name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.
The plea further claims that the two other Election Commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were unaware of or had not authorised those appeals.
