New Form 6 neither approved nor rejected: Supreme Court clarifies stance, ‘When Bihar SIR judgment was delivered…’

Form 6 is the official application used by citizens seeking registration as new voters. It matters because it starts the process of adding an eligible person to the electoral roll. Without this application, election officials would not have the applicant’s details in the required format.

The controversy concerns a revised Form 6 used in connection with election-roll revisions. The new version asks applicants whether they or their parents were linked to an earlier Special Intensive Revision, or SIR. The earlier version used in other states did not ask for this information.

The form’s legal status is still unsettled. The Supreme Court said its May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment neither approved nor rejected the later declaration. It will examine whether the changes are legally valid. Until that examination, the article does not state what final form applicants must use or whether any application has been rejected because of the disputed requirements.

The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier Bihar SIR judgment cannot be treated as approval or rejection of the new Form 6 declaration. The declaration did not exist when the May 2026 judgment was delivered. Therefore, the judges had no opportunity to examine its wording or legality in that case.

The clarification followed a dispute over how the court’s remarks were understood. Advocate Narendra Mishra argued that the court had already said Form 6 was not approved. Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained that the court had only indicated that no decision had been made. Chief Justice Surya Kant also cautioned lawyers against selecting isolated words from oral remarks.

The matter remains open. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the petition concerning the Election Commission of India. Justice Bagchi said the court would examine the new declaration, so its legal status will depend on a later judicial assessment rather than the Bihar judgment.

The revised Form 6 requires applicants to provide information connecting them or their parents to an earlier Special Intensive Revision, or SIR. This adds a historical family link to the information requested from people seeking registration as new voters. The change is central to the legal dispute because it expands what applicants must declare.

Under the new declaration, an applicant must state whether the applicant or either parent was linked to the earlier revision. The article does not specify the exact documents, dates or wording applicants must provide. It only identifies the required connection to the earlier SIR. The previous Form 6 used during other states’ revisions did not seek this information.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether this requirement is lawful. Two Election Commissioners objected to the changes, saying they required amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The court will examine the declaration separately because it was introduced after the Bihar SIR judgment.

The petition alleges that around 14 decisions were made without agreement from the other two Election Commissioners. It says these decisions were taken over a period of 10 months. The allegation concerns the way decisions were made inside the Election Commission of India, rather than the number of voter applications affected.

Priya Mishra and former Madhya Pradesh law minister PC Sharma filed the petition. They allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar failed to follow collective decision procedures. According to the petition, the other two commissioners did not agree with roughly 14 decisions attributed to the Chief Election Commissioner during the stated period.

These claims remain allegations in the petition. The article does not report a final judicial finding on whether the decisions were improperly made. The dispute matters because the petition links the alleged decision-making process to the Election Commission’s handling of issues including the revised Form 6 declaration. The court’s examination will determine what, if anything, follows.

The article does not say what would happen to individual voter-registration applicants if the new Form 6 requirements were found legally invalid. It reports only that the Supreme Court will examine whether the changes are lawful. The court’s eventual ruling would determine whether the declaration can continue in its current form.

As a matter of general legal process, a court may invalidate or set aside an unlawful requirement. Election authorities would then generally need to follow the legally authorised form or procedure. Depending on the ruling, applications could require reassessment, correction or processing under an earlier or revised lawful form. These possible administrative effects are not specified in the article.

The immediate reality is uncertainty, not a stated rejection of applications. The new declaration asks about applicants’ or parents’ links to an earlier SIR, while two Election Commissioners say rule changes were needed first. Until the Supreme Court decides, the article does not establish whether applicants must resubmit forms or face delays.

Two Election Commissioners objected because they believed the revised Form 6 did more than alter administrative wording. In their view, requiring applicants to provide new information effectively required changes to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Those rules govern the framework for voter registration and related electoral-roll procedures.

Their argument was that the Election Commission could not introduce the new requirement on its own if the change conflicted with or expanded the rules. They said the Central Government needed to amend the rules first. Only after that step, in their view, could the Commission lawfully require applicants to provide the additional information about an earlier SIR involving themselves or their parents.

The article presents this as an objection, not a final legal finding. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the declaration is valid. Its examination will address whether the later Form 6 changes were authorised under the existing rules or needed the prior amendment sought by the commissioners.

When the Supreme Court conducts judicial review, it examines whether a public authority acted within the power granted by law. In this dispute, that means assessing whether the Election Commission could introduce the revised Form 6 and whether the required decision-making process was followed. The court can interpret the governing rules and measure the challenged action against them.

The article identifies two issues for examination. The new declaration requires information about an applicant’s or parents’ links to an earlier SIR. Two Election Commissioners say this needed an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. A separate petition alleges that around 14 decisions lacked agreement from the other commissioners over 10 months.

Judicial review does not automatically mean the court approves one side’s claims. The Supreme Court will consider the arguments and record, then issue its own decision. Until then, the Bihar SIR judgment is not evidence that the later declaration was approved, because the declaration did not exist when that judgment was delivered.