Archive · 6 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Says It Never Approved Modified Form 6
Form 6 is a form people use to ask to be added to the voter list.
A changed version asks new applicants about whether they or some relatives appeared in an earlier voter-list review.
Reports differ on whether the question covers parents or grandparents.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court had not approved that change and wants to see records showing who made it.
The Election Commission had said the Court upheld the declaration in an earlier judgment about a voter-list review in Bihar.
Reports say that judgment came before the change and did not consider it.
A petition also claims that some Election Commission decisions were made without agreement from all commissioners.
The Court sent notices and asked for records, but did not temporarily suspend the Chief Election Commissioner.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court had not approved changes to Form 6, used to apply for voter registration.
The disputed declaration asks applicants whether they or relatives were listed in an earlier Special Intensive Revision; accounts differ on whether it covers parents or grandparents.
The Election Commission’s September 26 statement said the Court had upheld the declaration, citing its May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment; reports say the later modification was not before the Court in that case.
A petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenges 14 alleged unilateral Election Commission decisions, including the Form 6 change and other electoral-roll matters.
The bench issued notice and sought records, but declined to grant an interim request to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant; petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi; and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- What
- The Court said it had not approved the modified Form 6 declaration and issued notice on a petition challenging alleged unilateral Election Commission decisions.
- When
- The hearing was reported on October 5, 2026; reports differ on the weekday, describing it as Monday or Thursday.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
- Why
- The petition challenges the Form 6 modification and alleges that some Election Commission decisions were made without full commission concurrence.
Court’s clarification and petitioners’ claims
Election Commission’s stated position
Whether the Court approved the declaration
Court’s clarification and petitioners’ claims
Surya Kant said the Court had not approved a modified Form 6. Reports say the declaration was introduced after the May 2026 judgment and was not considered in that case.
Election Commission’s stated position
The Election Commission’s September 26 statement said the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration, citing its judgment concerning the Bihar SIR.
Authority to change Form 6
Court’s clarification and petitioners’ claims
The petition and reports on commissioners’ objections contend that the form could not be changed without the required statutory procedure and full commission concurrence.
Election Commission’s stated position
The Commission cited the Court’s recognition of its authority to conduct a special revision and use a declaration in the Bihar SIR; it has also said differences of views are normal deliberations.
- Form 6
- An application used by eligible people to seek inclusion in electoral rolls.
- Disputed declaration
- The added declaration concerns an applicant’s or relatives’ mapping in an earlier SIR; reports differ on which relatives it covers.
- Supreme Court observation
- Surya Kant said the Court had not approved a modified Form 6 and wanted records showing who made the change.
- Election Commission statement
- A September 26 statement said the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration, referring to its May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR.
- May 2026 judgment
- Reports say the judgment preceded the disputed modification and did not examine the new declaration.
- Petition
- Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenges 14 decisions alleged to have been taken unilaterally and seeks action concerning alleged official-duty breaches.
- Court action
- The bench issued notice and sought records; it declined an interim request to suspend Gyanesh Kumar.
Sources
CJI Surya Kant says ECI never approved modified Form 6 for SIR
Election Commission, SC and Congress propaganda over SIR
SIR: Modified Form 6 not approved by Supreme Court, says CJI
Supreme Court Says It Never Approved Modified Form 6 Used For Electoral Rolls During SIR
Form 6 whodunit: SC says it didn't approve SIR-declaration change, as claimed by EC - Telegraph India
‘Form 6 modification not approved by us’, say SC; seeks EC’s response
