Archive · 5 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Clarification Sparks Questions Over Form 6 Changes
Form 6 is used by people who want to register as voters.
The Election Commission added a declaration asking about whether applicants or their relatives had appeared on earlier voter lists.
The commission says it did not change the official form and describes the extra declaration as temporary.
Critics say people had to complete the declaration to submit the online form.
The Cockroach Janta Party asked why the commission said the Supreme Court had approved the declaration.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court had not approved a modified Form 6.
The court was hearing petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The article says the disputed commission press release was still on its website, despite a party leader’s claim that it had been taken down.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6.
The Cockroach Janta Party questioned the Election Commission’s earlier claim that the court had upheld the declaration attached to the form.
The Election Commission says the statutory Form 6 was not amended and that the additional declaration was a temporary requirement called Annexure-D.
Critics say the declaration was effectively mandatory because the online application system would not accept forms without the requested information.
A party leader claimed the Election Commission had removed a September 26 press release; the article says it remained available on the commission’s website.
- Who
- The Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Cockroach Janta Party, and the Supreme Court.
- What
- The Supreme Court’s statement that it had not approved a modified Form 6 prompted questions about the Election Commission’s declaration for new voter applicants.
- When
- On Monday; the article also refers to an Election Commission press release dated September 26.
- Where
- India.
- Why
- The dispute concerns whether an added declaration about previous voter-list registration was approved by the Supreme Court and whether it was effectively compulsory in online applications.
Critics and petitioners
Election Commission
Whether Form 6 was effectively modified
Critics and petitioners
Critics and petitioners argue that making the declaration compulsory in the online system effectively changed the statutory form.
Election Commission
The Election Commission says the statutory Form 6 was never modified or amended and characterizes the additional declaration as a temporary requirement.
Whether the Supreme Court approved the declaration
Critics and petitioners
The Cockroach Janta Party questioned the commission’s claim that the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Election Commission
The commission’s September 26 release, as described in the article, said the framework was upheld by the Supreme Court’s May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment; Chief Justice Surya Kant later said the court had not approved a modified Form 6.
Whether the declaration was optional
Critics and petitioners
Critics say applicants could not submit the online form without completing the declaration.
Election Commission
The Election Commission maintained that the declaration was optional.
- Form
- Form 6 is used to enrol new voters.
- Court statement
- Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court had not approved any modified Form 6.
- Election Commission position
- The commission says the statutory form was not amended and the extra declaration was a temporary requirement labelled Annexure-D.
- Declaration details
- The declaration asked whether applicants or their parents had been mapped in electoral rolls during the previous SIR; the commission also described additional fields concerning parents’ or grandparents’ prior registration data.
- Online application dispute
- Petitioners say the online workflow prevented submission unless applicants completed the declaration.
- Press release
- A Cockroach Janta Party co-convener claimed the September 26 release had been removed; the article reports it was still available on the Election Commission website.
- Related hearing
- The Supreme Court was hearing petitions seeking Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension.