EC-SIR row: SC says it hasn't adjudicated on validity of new Form 6, will examine it

The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier Bihar judgment did not decide whether the revised Form 6 declaration was lawful. The bench said it had made no adjudication on the new form. This matters because the Election Commission had suggested that the court had upheld the declaration.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained that the new Form 6 did not exist when the court delivered its judgment on Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision in May 2026. Therefore, that judgment could not amount to approval or disapproval of the later form. The Chief Justice also warned lawyers against reading too much into isolated observations.

The court agreed to issue notice on the petition and will examine the issue. The matter was listed for October 27, alongside connected petitions involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The court’s clarification leaves the declaration’s legal validity open.

Form 6 is the voter-registration application used by an eligible person seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. It is the basic document through which someone applies to have their name added to the official list of voters. That makes it important for access to electoral participation.

The controversy concerns a declaration included in the application, not the form’s basic purpose. Under the revised version, new applicants must state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous Special Intensive Revision. The earlier version used during electoral-roll revisions in other states did not ask for this information.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the revised declaration’s validity. It clarified that its May 2026 Bihar judgment did not approve the new form. The petition now before the court challenges issues surrounding the Election Commission’s functioning and the form changes.

The main change is a new declaration connected to the previous Special Intensive Revision, or SIR. Applicants seeking registration as new voters must now state whether they or their parents were mapped in that earlier exercise. This adds a historical family-linked requirement to the application.

The earlier Form 6 used during electoral-roll revisions in other states did not seek this declaration. The change therefore became controversial because it could affect the information applicants must provide when seeking inclusion. It also raised questions about whether the Election Commission followed the required legal procedure.

The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the modification. They argued that Form 6 could not be changed without a Central government amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court has not yet approved or rejected the revised declaration.

Form 6 is a voter-registration application used beyond the Bihar exercise described in the article. The text refers to an earlier version used during electoral-roll revisions in other states. This shows that the form is part of a broader registration process, while the present legal dispute has been highlighted through Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision.

The revised declaration asks new applicants whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. The article does not say that this requirement applies only to Bihar, nor does it provide a complete nationwide implementation list. It does establish that earlier Form 6 use extended to other states.

The Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerned the Bihar SIR, but the bench stressed that the new Form 6 did not exist at that time. The court will examine the form’s validity after issuing notice on the petition and listing it for October 27.

A voter-registration application seeks inclusion in the electoral roll. Adding a declaration about past mapping can affect the information an applicant must provide before registration is considered. The controversy matters because the new requirement links a person’s application to records from an earlier Special Intensive Revision.

Under the revised Form 6, applicants must state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. The article does not say that an applicant is automatically rejected for answering either way. However, the added declaration creates an additional step that could influence scrutiny of an application.

This is why the legality of the change is important. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly argued that the form could not be modified without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court has not decided that issue and will examine it.

The article reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi believed the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, could be changed only through an amendment by the Central government. Their objection focused on the legal procedure behind the revised declaration.

That is different from altering the wording of an application form. A form change adds or removes information applicants must provide, while amending the rules changes the governing legal framework. The reported dispute is whether the Election Commission could introduce the new declaration directly or first needed the Central government to amend the rules.

The article does not present a final judicial ruling on this question. The Supreme Court said it had not adjudicated the new Form 6’s validity and agreed to issue notice on the petition. The court will examine the issue, with the matter listed for October 27.

An electoral roll is the official list used to identify people registered as voters in a constituency. An eligible citizen who wants to become a new voter uses Form 6 to seek inclusion in that list. The process therefore connects an individual’s registration application with their ability to be recognised as a voter.

The article describes Form 6 as the application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral roll. The revised version adds a declaration asking whether the applicant or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. That information can become part of the registration process before the person’s name is included.

The article focuses on whether this added requirement was introduced lawfully. The Supreme Court has not decided the form’s validity. Its clarification means the May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment cannot be treated as approval of the revised declaration, and the court will now examine the challenge.