The Supreme Court on Monday made a significant clarification on the controversy surrounding changes to Form 6, stating that the modified version of the voter registration form was not approved by the court, contrary to the Election Commission’s recent claim that the declaration attached to the form had been upheld by the top 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 while hearing pleas challenging the functioning and decision-making of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing petitions alleging that several decisions of the Election Commission were taken without the approval of its two other Election Commissioners. The court issued notices to the EC, the Union government, the CEC and the other commissioners, but did not pass an interim order against Kumar.
The Form 6 issue came up during arguments after senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy referred to changes made to the online version of the statutory form used by new voters to seek inclusion in electoral rolls.
What Is The Form 6 Controversy?
Form 6 is the statutory application used by people seeking inclusion in the electoral roll, including those who have turned 18 or are otherwise eligible to register as voters.
The controversy centres on an additional declaration inserted into the online version of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The additional section asked applicants to provide details about whether their name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR.
Media had reported earlier that while the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, had not been amended, the additional declaration appeared on the ECI’s online portal. Applicants were required to complete the section before proceeding with submission
The report had also highlighted that Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, gives the Centre the power to make rules for carrying out the Act, while Form 6 flows from the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The change subsequently became a point of contention within the Election Commission itself.
According to documents reported by The Indian Express, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi had recorded in May that Form 6 could not be altered without amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had concurred with that view.
Despite this, the SIR declaration appeared on the online form in July. In August, Sandhu reportedly termed the change “unauthorised/illegal" and called for its immediate removal.
EC Had Said Supreme Court Upheld The Declaration
The controversy intensified after the Election Commission, in a September 26 press note, said the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The commission had said: “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used."
However, the Supreme Court’s remarks on Monday indicate that the court did not approve the modification to Form 6.
The May 2026 Supreme Court judgment on the Bihar SIR had upheld the broader SIR framework, but the modified Form 6 declaration was introduced later. Reports on Monday noted that the court therefore had not examined or approved the subsequent modification when it delivered that judgment.
‘We Want To See Who Modified It’
The CJI’s remark also puts the spotlight on the question of who authorised the change to the statutory voter registration form.
The Supreme Court indicated that it would examine the records once they are placed before it and determine who made the modification.
The issue is part of a larger challenge before the court over allegations that CEC Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions without the involvement or approval of the other two Election Commissioners.
The petitioners have alleged that such actions violated the collective decision-making framework governing the Election Commission. The ECI, however, has maintained that differences of view are part of its decision-making process and has said its decisions have been unanimous.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to act merely on the basis of media reports and sought responses and records from the concerned authorities before considering the allegations.
