Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Clarifies Stance on Revised Voter Registration Form 6
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Issue: No Judicial Endorsement or Rejection of Revised Form 6
On October 5, a three-judge bench—Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana—said it had neither approved nor disapproved the additional declaration added to the online Form 6 used in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The bench noted that the modified form did not exist when it delivered its May 27, 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, so earlier observations could not be read as a substantive ruling. The matter is listed for a hearing on October 27 to examine the legal validity of the changes after the relevant records are produced.
Background & Context
- Form 6 is the statutory application prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950).
- The May 27, 2026 Bihar SIR judgment upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to conduct an intensive revision but did not address the later online amendment.
- In July 2026 the ECI added an additional declaration on its ECINet/ERONet portal requiring applicants to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the previous SIR roll. The ECI’s September 26 press note claimed the Supreme Court had “upheld” this declaration.
- Petitioners, including senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy (for Shailendra Mani Tripathi) and Priya Mishra, argued that the amendment was introduced without the statutory amendment required under the 1960 rules.
Official Statements & Responses
- The bench explained that its October 5 observations were limited to the fact that the revised form was not before the court at the time of the May 27 judgment, and therefore could not be construed as endorsement or rejection. It ordered production of records to determine who authorized the change.
- The ECI maintained that the statutory Form 6 remained unchanged and that the additional declaration was an annexure applicable only for the SIR period, to be withdrawn once the SIR concluded.
- Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected to the online amendment, stating that any alteration to Form 6 must follow the amendment procedure prescribed for the 1960 rules.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The ECI’s September 26 claim that the Supreme Court “upheld” the declaration conflicts with the court’s October 5 clarification that no adjudication on the revised Form 6 has occurred.
- Petitioners have asked the court to produce records identifying who authorized the online change, indicating a lack of documentary evidence on the decision-making process within the ECI.
Verbatim Quote
- “We have neither approved nor disapproved revised Form 6,” — Chief Justice Surya Kant
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has listed the petition for a hearing on October 27. At that session, the bench will examine the records concerning the authorization of the revised Form 6 and decide whether the additional declaration can stand under the existing statutory framework or requires amendment of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.