1 day ago
Supreme Court Says It Did Not Change Voter Form 6
The Supreme Court is hearing challenges to how voter lists have been updated.
The court said it did not change Form 6, the form people use to register as voters.
New applicants have reportedly been asked extra questions about whether they or their relatives appeared on earlier voter lists.
Lawyers bringing the case say these changes and voter deletions could harm people’s voting rights.
They also want action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar while the case is being considered.
The judges questioned whether the court should limit his role before examining the evidence.
They also discussed a law that protects election commissioners from court cases, including after they leave office.
The court issued notice and said it would review records and hear the Election Commission before deciding on interim requests.
The Supreme Court said it did not make changes to Form 6, used to register new voters during electoral-roll revisions.
The court said modifications to the statutory form should follow the proper law-making process, not be made through unilateral administrative action.
Petitions seek the suspension or restriction of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged bias and procedural overreach during the Special Intensive Revision.
The petitioners say new Form 6 requirements and voter deletions threaten voting rights; one lawyer cited deletions affecting 30% of Delhi’s electorate and 25% of West Bengal’s.
The court issued notice and said it would examine authenticated records and hear the Election Commission before considering interim relief.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Election Commission of India, and petitioners Rakesh Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
- What
- The court heard petitions seeking action against the CEC over alleged bias and procedural overreach during the electoral-roll revision, and said it did not make the Form 6 changes.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India.
- When
- Monday; the article was published October 5, 2026.
- Why
- The petitions challenge the CEC’s conduct and the Form 6 requirements introduced during the Special Intensive Revision, which petitioners say threaten voting rights.
Petitioners’ arguments
Court’s concerns
Interim action against the CEC
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners urged the court to suspend the CEC or limit his authority during the case; they also proposed requiring unanimous Election Commission decisions.
Court’s concerns
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned who would conduct elections if the CEC were suspended and cautioned against presuming that Commission orders were unilateral before examining them.
Form 6 and voter rights
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that new Form 6 conditions and voter deletions threaten franchise rights, and that the statutory form cannot be modified administratively.
Court’s concerns
The Chief Justice said the court had not made the Form 6 changes and indicated that it would first examine records and hear the Election Commission.
Immunity after leaving office
Petitioners’ arguments
Counsel for a petitioner argued that the CEC should be accountable to ordinary legal processes and that the law does not give the CEC an individual title above the Commission.
Court’s concerns
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the statutory protection for former election commissioners extends beyond protection connected with their time in office, noting that judges do not have the same post-retirement protection.
Key facts
- Form 6
- A statutory form used to register new voters, listed in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Contested changes
- A supplementary declaration asks applicants about previous registration of themselves, their parents, or grandparents, and responses are required to submit applications.
- Petitions
- Two petitions seek suspension or limits on the authority of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- Relevant law
- Section 16 of the 2023 Act provides that courts shall not entertain or continue civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a CEC or Election Commissioner.
- Figures cited by petitioner
- Menaka Guruswamy said 30% of Delhi’s electorate and 25% of West Bengal’s electorate had been deleted in the SIR process.
- Court’s next step
- The court issued notice and said it would examine records and hear the Election Commission before considering interim orders.
Quotes
Joymalya Bagchi
Supreme Court Justice on the post-retirement immunity provision
“A protection when in office is always understood. But the ‘was’ in the provision is perhaps only protection with regard to the President. It does not apply even to judges... Look at the Judges Inquiry Act.”
thehindubusinessline.com
“We are making it clear, any modifications to Form 6 have not been made by us.”
thehindubusinessline.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Says It Never Approved Modified Form 6
Supreme Court Says It Did Not Approve Form 6 Changes
Supreme Court Says Modified Form 6 Was Not Approved
Rahul Gandhi Says CEC Changed Form 6 Illegally
Plea Seeks Prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over ECI Decisions
Supreme Court Reviews Election Commission Decisions, Issues Notices
Rahul Gandhi Leads Opposition Protest Seeking Election Chief Meeting
AAP Students' Wing Plans October 10 Protest Against Election Chief
India’s Electoral System Needs Reform Beyond SIR and CEC
AISA Leader Urges Unity Against BJP Over Voter Roll Deletions
Rahul Gandhi Detained During Protest Against Election Chief
