Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Refutes Approval of Modified Form 6 Amid SIR Dispute
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On October 5 2026, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modification to Form 6, the voter-registration form used during the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The Court will examine records to determine who introduced the changes.
Background & Context
Form 6, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, is required for inclusion in the electoral roll. During the SIR, the Election Commission of India (ECI) added a declaration asking applicants whether they or their parents/grandparents appeared in the previous SIR roll. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi argued that the form cannot be altered without amending the Rules.
Timeline of Key Developments
- June 24 2025 – Bihar SIR order issued.
- May 27 2026 – Supreme Court upholds the SIR framework in Bihar, without addressing the new declaration.
- August 13 2026 – Commissioner Sandhu records dissent, calling the Form 6 change “unauthorised and illegal.”
- July 29-30 2026 – Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi petition the Cabinet Secretary and later nullify a related IT order.
- September 26 2026 – ECI press note claims the Form 6 declaration is “upheld by the Supreme Court.”
- October 5 2026 – Supreme Court hearing; CJI Kant states the Court never approved the modification and will review the records.
Data & Statistics
- Two Election Commissioners formally objected to the Form 6 changes.
- The petition cites at least 14 written objections recorded between Nov 2025 and Aug 2026.
- After the controversy, the ECI removed the additional declaration from the online Form 6 in states where SIR was completed.
- 47 lakh voters were deleted from a draft roll of 1.45 crore on August 31 2026.
Official Statements & Responses
- The Supreme Court reiterated that no approval was given for the modified Form 6 and will scrutinise the records.
- The ECI maintains that the statutory Form 6 itself was not amended; the extra declaration is an “additional requirement” applicable only during SIR.
- Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the petitioner, argued that the changes breach the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
- Justice Bagchi warned that any decision taken without the required unanimity or majority could be injuncted.
Criticism & Opposition
- Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of “misrepresenting” the Court’s position and targeting young voters.
- CJP activist Ashutosh Ranka said the ECI withdrew its September 26 press release that cited the Court’s alleged endorsement.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The ECI’s September 26 press note asserted Supreme Court approval, whereas the Supreme Court on October 5 denied any such approval.
- The Court’s May 27 2026 judgment dealt with a simpler declaration; the newer SIR-linked declaration was introduced after that judgment, creating uncertainty about its legal basis.
What’s Next
The bench has issued notice to the Centre, the Election Commission, the CEC, the dissenting commissioners and senior officials, seeking responses before deciding whether any actions were ultra vires. Pending authenticated records, the Court could undo any action taken without the required unanimity or majority.