The Supreme Court on October 5 said it had not approved any modification to the contents of Form 6, directly contradicting the Election Commission’s (EC) recent claim that it alterations made in the form were upheld by the court. Form 6 is the document used by citizens to apply for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll.

The apex court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and seeking the suspension of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar who has come under intense scrutiny following an Indian Express report published on September 25. It showed that Kumar had overruled written objections from election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi at least on 14 occasions in 10 months. One of the points of contention was modifications to Form 6.

On September 26, the ECI issued a press note saying that the “declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR” had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

On Monday, while arguing in front of a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy and Vikas Singh questioned the decision-making process followed by the three-member Election Commission. Guruswamy raised concerns over the use of a modified Form 6 during the SIR process.

“Let us see how the SIR was conducted in Delhi. Form 6 has two new conditions added. The modified Form 6 was circulated. The Schedule to the RPA contains Form 6. It cannot be modified in this manner,” she submitted.

In response, chief justice Surya Kant made the court’s position clear: “We have not approved Form 6. A modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let us be very clear.”

Guruswami also noted that the supposed ‘illegality’ of the SIR process had prevented the conduct of free and fair elections in India. “We have grown up with free and fair elections in this country. They do not exist today,” she said.

The court issued notices to the central election commission, the chief election commissioner and the two other commissioners, seeking their responses. The Bench further mentioned that if any decision taken by the Election Commission was found not to be in accordance with the law, it would be annulled.

The Controversy Regarding Form 6

Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This means the ECI cannot simply change the form or add new requirements whenever it wants. Any change to the statutory format has to be made through the parliament, rather than through an internal decision of the poll panel.

In states where the SIR is currently ongoing, such as Delhi and Karnataka, the online Form 6 available on the Election Commission’s website contains an additional declaration section between Sections J and K. In this section, an applicant has to state whether their name appears in the electoral roll from the previous SIR, whether their parents’ or grandparents’ names appear in that roll, or whether neither their name nor their parents’ names appear in the previous SIR electoral roll.

The Declaration Form for Delhi

 

The Declaration Form for Karnataka

Although this declaration is not marked as mandatory, applicants cannot submit the online Form 6 without filling it in.

However, in states where the SIR has already been completed or has not yet started, such as West Bengal, the Form 6 link on the ECI website does not show this additional declaration.

The Form-6 for West Bengal doesn’t require previous SIR data

Interestingly, if the Form 6 PDF is downloaded from the same ECI website for offline submission, there is no section asking for any SIR-related information. This means that the additional declaration appears to be present only in the online version of Form 6 being used in states where the SIR is underway.

SC’s May 2026 Bihar SIR Judgement

In a May 27, 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court had said that the EC had some power to decide what documents it could ask voters to provide during an SIR.

On October 5, the ECI cited this to seemingly claim that the declarations added to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the SIR declarations in question added to Form 6 are different from what the Supreme Court had examined in the Bihar case. During the Bihar SIR, the ECI used a separate document called Annexure D.

The new declaration started appearing on the ECI’s online voter-registration system from July 2026.

Reacting to the controversy, Calcutta high court advocate Samim Ahammed said, “Despite being the holder of a constitutional post, the chief election commissioner’s conduct over the past few years has been arbitrary, with the Commission acting in violation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The Commission does not have the power to legislate or make changes to a statute. The rules have to be laid before Parliament before they can be enforced. But the way in which the Commission has tried to bypass this process is extremely unfortunate for the health of our democracy.”

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi commented on X that the SC observation “established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally.”