Supreme Court Says Modified Form 6 Was Not Approved

The Supreme Court on Monday made one point unmistakably clear: it had not approved any modification to Form 6, the statutory application used by citizens to seek inclusion in electoral rolls.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said the court wanted to examine the official records and establish who authorised or carried out the changes. The remark came during the hearing of a petition challenging alleged unilateral decisions and software changes linked to the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. The New Indian Express

“Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear.”

The observation has added a new layer to an already contentious dispute involving the Election Commission, the SIR process and the procedure followed for altering the online voter-registration form.

Why Form 6 Has Become a Flashpoint

Form 6 is the statutory application through which an eligible citizen applies to have their name included in the electoral roll.

The dispute concerns an additional declaration that was added to the online version of the form during the SIR exercise. The declaration sought information linking an applicant or family members to an earlier Special Intensive Revision roll.

The petitioner, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, has alleged that these changes were introduced through the EC's ECINet/ERONet systems without following the statutory process required for amending prescribed electoral forms. Supreme Court Observer

That distinction matters. The controversy is not simply about a redesigned online form. It goes to the question of who had legal authority to alter a statutory document and whether the Election Commission followed the required procedure.

Supreme Court Wants the Records

During Monday's hearing, the bench indicated that it wanted to see the underlying records before drawing conclusions about how the modified Form 6 came into existence.

The court issued notice on Tripathi's petition and tagged it with another PIL concerning the issue. The bench also observed that the prayers in Tripathi's petition appeared to be somewhat “jumbled up”, while nevertheless agreeing to examine the challenge. ThePrint

The case is significant because the petition does not only challenge the Form 6 changes. It raises broader questions about the functioning and decision-making process within the Election Commission.

The EC's September Claim Is Now Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's clarification comes days after the Election Commission said in a September 26 press release that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court in its May 2026 judgment concerning Bihar's SIR. The Indian Express

Monday's hearing puts that assertion under a much sharper judicial lens.

The court has now expressly stated that the modified Form 6 itself was not approved by the bench. The precise scope of what the May judgment addressed, and whether it can be relied upon to justify the later Form 6 changes, is therefore likely to become a central issue in the proceedings.

Legal reporting has noted that the additional declaration was introduced after the Bihar SIR judgment, raising questions about whether that judgment could have amounted to approval of a later modification that the court had not examined. Live Law

Petition Raises Questions Over ECI's Internal Decision-Making

Tripathi's petition alleges that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar introduced or approved several decisions and software changes without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

The petition relies on alleged file notings by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

According to the allegations cited in the petition:

• Vivek Joshi recorded in May that Form 6 was a statutory instrument and could not be altered without the prescribed legal process.
• Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently recorded objections to the changes and allegedly described the alteration as “unauthorised and illegal”.
• The petition also challenges the alleged restriction of access for Electoral Registration Officers through the election software system.
• It argues that amendments to statutory forms under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 require the appropriate formal rule-making process. The Indian Express

These remain allegations made in the petition, not findings by the Supreme Court.

What the Petitioner Is Asking For

Tripathi has sought directions to strike down the alleged modifications made to Form 6 on the ECINet and ERONet platforms.

The petition also seeks restoration of the statutory Form 6 and asks that eligible adults be allowed to register on the basis of the original requirements.

Beyond that, the plea seeks action against officials allegedly responsible for the changes, including a proposed investigation into the decision-making and technology systems involved. Live Law

The Supreme Court has not accepted these allegations as established facts. Its immediate step has been to seek the Election Commission's response and examine the relevant records.

Goa and West Bengal Issues Also Raised

The petition extends beyond the Form 6 controversy.

It raises separate allegations concerning electoral-roll revision in Goa and West Bengal.

In Goa, the petitioner alleges that the EC's software lacked a mechanism to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification.

In West Bengal, the plea alleges that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission's name against voters whose names had reportedly been restored by judicial officers. The petitioner claims these appeals were not authorised by the other Election Commissioners or the state's Chief Electoral Officer. Live Law

Those allegations will also have to be tested through the judicial process.

The Bigger Question: Who Can Change the Voter Form?

At the heart of the dispute is a deceptively simple question: when a statutory voter-registration form is changed digitally, what legal procedure must be followed?

The answer could have consequences beyond the current SIR controversy.

The Election Commission has maintained that the additional declaration was linked specifically to the SIR exercise and has distinguished it from the statutory Form 6 used outside that process. It has also moved to remove the additional SIR declaration from online Form 6 in states where the revision exercise has concluded. The Financial Express

But the Supreme Court's latest intervention means the court will now examine the records and the legal basis for the modification rather than simply treating the change as an administrative or technical adjustment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court said it did not approve the modified Form 6.
• CJI Surya Kant said the court wants records showing who modified the form.
• The dispute centres on an additional SIR-related declaration concerning previous electoral rolls and family links.
• The Election Commission had earlier said the Form 6 declaration was backed by the Supreme Court's Bihar SIR judgment.
• A petition alleges that the changes were made without the required statutory procedure and without concurrence among all Election Commissioners.
• The allegations concerning Gyanesh Kumar, other officials, Goa and West Bengal remain subject to judicial examination.
• The EC has already removed the additional SIR declaration from Form 6 in states where the SIR process has concluded. The Financial Express

What Happens Next in the Form 6 Dispute

The immediate next step is for the Election Commission to place its response and relevant records before the Supreme Court.

That material could become critical. The bench has specifically indicated that it wants to establish how the disputed version of Form 6 was created and who authorised the modification.

For voters, the case is about more than a line added to an online application. It touches the mechanics of electoral registration, the limits of administrative power and the safeguards surrounding India's voter rolls.

The Supreme Court's eventual findings could therefore have implications well beyond the present SIR controversy. Readers following the case will be watching not only what the Election Commission says in response, but also what the underlying records reveal.

Disclaimer & Source Note: This article is based on publicly reported court proceedings, Election Commission statements and verified third-party news reports available as of October 5, 2026. Allegations made in petitions are presented as allegations and should not be treated as established judicial findings.