Supreme Court Questions ECI’s Claim on Modified Form 6, Seeks Records to Establish Who Approved Changes
The Supreme Court of India has questioned the Election Commission of India’s claim that changes introduced in the voter registration process had received judicial approval. On October 5, 2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the court had not approved any modified version of Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible citizens to register as voters. The court also indicated that it would examine the Election Commission’s records to establish who authorised the disputed changes.
The controversy centres on an additional declaration associated with the online version of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The disputed declaration required applicants to indicate whether their names, or those of their parents, appeared in electoral rolls prepared during the previous intensive revision, or whether none of these conditions applied.
According to a report published by The Wire, the online application reportedly prevented applicants from submitting Form 6 unless they selected one of these options, even though the options were not marked as mandatory fields. The article argues that this requirement created an additional barrier for people seeking voter registration, particularly those unable to establish the specified electoral-roll connections.
The dispute intensified after the Election Commission issued a statement on September 26, 2026, asserting that the declaration associated with Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court during its consideration of the Bihar SIR exercise. The commission maintained that the relevant declaration had received judicial approval in the context of the earlier proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court’s subsequent clarification raised questions about the basis for that assertion. The bench indicated that the court had examined documentation relating to the SIR process, rather than approving the particular modified online version now under challenge. It sought the commission’s records to determine how the changes were introduced and who authorised them.
A central legal issue concerns the distinction between the Election Commission’s authority to administer electoral rolls and the procedure required to amend statutory forms. Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 28 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules, in consultation with the Election Commission, for implementing the legislation. The rules are also subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the statutory procedure.
The Wire’s analysis argues that changes to a prescribed statutory form or its accompanying declaration must follow the applicable legal process and cannot be justified merely by referring to a Supreme Court judgment that considered a different version of the documentation. It further points out that the disputed declaration was absent from the version of the form notified in the Official Gazette in June 2022 and from the relevant declaration reproduced in the Election Commission’s SIR instructions issued in June 2025.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that Form 6 itself was not amended and that the disputed declaration was a separate document associated with the SIR process. This distinction is central to the controversy because the legal question is not simply whether additional information can be collected during voter registration, but whether the particular requirements introduced through the online system were authorised under the applicable rules.
The matter has also drawn attention to the difference between online and offline voter registration procedures. If applicants using the online portal are required to provide additional declarations that are absent from the prescribed form, questions arise about the legal basis for that requirement and whether the same registration standards are being applied consistently.
The Supreme Court’s intervention does not, by itself, amount to a final finding that the Election Commission acted unlawfully. The bench has sought records and clarified the limits of its earlier approval, leaving the questions surrounding the authorisation and legality of the disputed changes for further examination.
The case has wider implications for electoral transparency and access to voter registration. Form 6 is an important entry point for eligible citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls, and any additional requirements can affect how easily applicants complete the process. The proceedings therefore raise broader questions about administrative discretion, statutory safeguards and the responsibility of election authorities to ensure that registration procedures remain consistent with the law.
The key issue before the court is whether the disputed declaration was introduced through a legally valid process and who authorised its inclusion in the online registration system. The Supreme Court’s request for records places the focus on documentary evidence and the decision-making process, rather than on competing public statements about what the court had previously approved.
