‘Do not put words in our mouth’: Supreme Court says it never adjudicated new Form 6, will examine challenge on Oct 27

The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier comments on Bihar’s special intensive revision, or SIR, were not a ruling on the validity of the modified Form 6. The bench said there had been no constitutional adjudication of the new form. It warned counsel not to attribute approval or rejection to the court.

The distinction matters because the modified online process includes an additional declaration about earlier electoral rolls. On October 5, the court said the modified form was not in existence when it delivered its Bihar SIR judgment. Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained that this only established timing, not judicial approval or disapproval.

The court has now agreed to examine the issue. It directed that the matter be listed with the SIR petitions on October 27. That hearing will consider the declaration and wider challenges to the Election Commission’s role and decisions during the electoral-roll revision exercise.

Form 6 is the statutory application for people who want their names included in electoral rolls. The form is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In practical terms, citizens use it to apply for voter registration or seek inclusion in the rolls.

The article highlights two groups affected by the process: young people applying for the first time and people whose names were deleted and who want re-enrolment. The controversy concerns an extra declaration attached to the online registration process during Bihar’s special intensive revision. The Election Commission says the statutory Form 6 itself remains unchanged.

The dispute is about whether an online addendum can impose extra requirements while citizens use Form 6. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that question. It will examine the challenge alongside petitions concerning the SIR exercise on October 27.

The reported addition was an extra declaration linked to the previous special intensive revision, or SIR. Applicants were asked whether their own name appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the earlier SIR. They also had to indicate whether a parent’s or grandparent’s name appeared in that roll.

This created a family-link requirement for some applicants. A first-time voter might not appear in an earlier SIR roll, while another applicant might need to connect their application to a parent or grandparent. The article says these changes appeared in the online registration process and were first reported in July.

The Election Commission describes the measure as an addendum for the revision exercise, not a change to statutory Form 6. The legal challenge questions whether this additional declaration can be imposed without changing the underlying rules. The Supreme Court will examine that issue.

The Election Commission said in a September 26 press note that the Supreme Court had upheld the additional declaration. It likely relied on the court’s May judgment on Bihar’s SIR, where the judges examined the Commission’s authority to seek additional documents while revising electoral rolls.

The court disputes that interpretation because the declaration now attached to online Form 6 was introduced later. The 2025 ECI order referred to an Annexure D declaration, but the article says that document did not ask for information about an applicant’s parents’ SIR verification. The later online changes therefore appear different from the material previously before the court.

On October 5, the court said it had not approved any Form 6 modification and sought records showing who authorised the changes. It has now agreed to examine the question. The matter will be heard with the SIR petitions on October 27.

The added declaration could create problems because not every applicant has a history in an earlier SIR roll. A young person registering for the first time may never have appeared in that roll. Asking about the applicant’s own earlier entry could therefore create uncertainty in the registration process.

People seeking re-enrolment may face a different obstacle. If their names were deleted, they might be asked to establish that a parent or grandparent appeared in the earlier SIR roll. The article identifies this family linkage as a practical concern, especially where applicants cannot easily provide the required information.

These difficulties matter because the declaration affects how eligible citizens are included in electoral rolls. Its legality and scope remain unresolved. The Supreme Court has said it will examine the challenge with the wider SIR litigation on October 27, while the Election Commission maintains that the statutory Form 6 itself was not altered.

The key issue is that Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It is not simply an informal webpage. The article says these rules are framed by the Centre in consultation with the Election Commission, and changes must follow the prescribed statutory process.

That framework creates a legal distinction between the official form and an online addendum. The Election Commission says the statutory Form 6 remains unchanged and that the extra declaration was only for the SIR exercise. Petitioners argue that adding a requirement through the online form may still change what applicants must provide.

The question is now before the Supreme Court. On October 5, the bench sought records about who authorised the changes and what they contained. The court will consider whether the additional declaration had a proper legal basis, alongside the SIR petitions scheduled for October 27.

Electoral rolls are created and revised through applications, prescribed forms, and revision exercises. Form 6 is used for inclusion, while the Election Commission conducts and manages the electoral-roll process. In Bihar, the Commission ordered a special intensive revision and required material connected with earlier rolls.

The central government frames the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in consultation with the Election Commission. Those rules provide the statutory basis for Form 6, and changes must follow the required legal process. The Commission has argued that its extra declaration was an addendum for the SIR, not an amendment to the statutory form.

Courts examine whether these actions are legally authorised and whether constitutional or statutory requirements were followed. The Supreme Court previously considered the Commission’s authority to seek additional documents, but says it never adjudicated the new Form 6. It will examine the challenge on October 27.