Story perspectives

Supreme Court to Hear Form 6 Rule Challenge in India’s SIR

By Drooid · Oct 20, 2026, 10:16 AM UTC · How we work

Summary

Election Commission Re-enrols Voters

India’s Election Commission ordered voters removed in the SIR to re-enrol using Form 6.
Delhi High Court judges Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary said false-declaration fears were misplaced.
Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu said Form 6 changes require amendment to the 1960 Rules.
Supreme Court scheduled Form 6 hearings and Chief Justice Surya Kant noted no approved modification.

Summary

Petitioners challenge SIR

Petitioners argued the SIR provision violates the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
They claimed the rule infringes constitutional fundamental rights.
Their plea invoked Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 to restore their names.
Standing counsel Sanjay Vashishtha said the Electoral Registration Officer would assist with Form 6.
Petitioners, including Nilotpal Datta, had not submitted Form 6 despite the assistance offered.

History

Historical Context

The 1950 Representation of the People Act set India’s electoral framework, defining voter eligibility and registration. The 1966 amendment reshaped dispute resolution by moving election petitions to High Courts, illustrating Parliament’s pattern of refining election law. Today, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Surya Kant reviews a contemporary rule derived from later amendments, echoing that historic drive for electoral integrity.

1 of 3

Election Commission Re-enrols Voters

India’s Election Commission ordered voters removed in the SIR to re-enrol using Form 6.
Delhi High Court judges Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary said false-declaration fears were misplaced.
Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu said Form 6 changes require amendment to the 1960 Rules.
Supreme Court scheduled Form 6 hearings and Chief Justice Surya Kant noted no approved modification.

1 / 3