India’s Supreme Court Demands Answers Over Changes to Voter Roll
India’s Supreme Court has sought answers from the Election Commission of India over alleged changes made to the voter-registration process during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, putting the spotlight on how the poll panel has modified the documents used by citizens to register as voters.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission and the manner in which electoral-roll revision decisions have been taken.
The immediate controversy centres on Form 6, the statutory application used by people seeking inclusion in an electoral roll.
During the SIR exercise, an additional declaration appeared in the online version of Form 6. Applicants were asked to provide information concerning whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier SIR electoral roll.
The change became particularly significant for first-time voters, many of whom would not themselves have appeared in an earlier electoral roll because of their age.
The petitioners questioned whether the Election Commission could introduce such additional requirements through the online system without formally amending the statutory framework governing Form 6.
Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear during the hearing that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6. The Bench said it wanted to examine the official records to determine who authorised the changes and what exactly had been altered.
The clarification came after the Election Commission had stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Commission subsequently maintained that the ordinary statutory Form 6 would continue to apply outside the SIR process.
The Court’s intervention therefore focuses not merely on the existence of an additional declaration but on the legal authority and procedure through which the change was introduced.
The petitioners have alleged that the changes were made without following the procedure applicable to the statutory electoral forms. Reports cited during the proceedings also referred to objections allegedly raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning changes to Form 6.
The Election Commission, however, has disputed the allegations and maintained that the additional declaration was introduced specifically for the SIR exercise rather than by altering the statutory Form 6 itself.
The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, held that the Election Commission acted illegally. Instead, it has sought the underlying records so that the factual position and the authority for the changes can be examined.
The Form 6 controversy is part of a much wider legal challenge to the SIR process, under which electoral rolls are being subjected to an extensive verification exercise.
The Supreme Court had earlier considered the Election Commission’s authority to undertake the Bihar SIR and recognised that the Commission possesses a degree of residual authority to formulate a documentation framework suited to a special revision exercise. At the same time, the Court indicated that such authority is not unlimited and must remain connected to the statutory framework and the objective of maintaining accurate electoral rolls.
That earlier ruling has become central to the present dispute because the Election Commission has relied upon it in defending the additional declaration associated with Form 6.
The petitioners, meanwhile, contend that the present changes go beyond what the Court had permitted and raise questions about the statutory procedure for modifying electoral-registration requirements.
The Supreme Court is also examining a separate petition alleging unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
In that matter, the Court has issued notice to the Election Commission, the Centre, the CEC and other officials while declining to suspend Gyanesh Kumar on an interim, ex parte basis. The Court has indicated that it will examine whether decisions relating to the SIR were taken in accordance with the statutory procedure governing the functioning of the multi-member Election Commission.
The two proceedings have consequently brought both the substance of the electoral-roll revision and the internal decision-making process of the Election Commission under judicial scrutiny.
For voters, the dispute has particular significance because changes to registration forms can directly affect the process through which citizens establish their eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls.
The Court’s demand for the records means that the next stage of the proceedings will focus on evidence rather than competing political claims. The Election Commission will have an opportunity to explain how the Form 6 changes were authorised, what legal framework was relied upon and how the additional declaration was implemented.
The Supreme Court’s intervention does not presently invalidate the SIR exercise or establish that eligible voters have been unlawfully excluded. Those questions remain subject to the ongoing proceedings.
What the Court has made clear, however, is that it intends to examine the legal basis and institutional process behind the changes to voter-registration documents.
The proceedings could ultimately have wider implications for the Election Commission’s powers to modify electoral procedures during intensive revision exercises and for the safeguards that must accompany any change capable of affecting voter registration.
For now, the Supreme Court has demanded the records and answers necessary to determine whether the challenged changes were authorised in accordance with law.
