SC says it never heard matters related to modification of Form 6

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not heard any case concerning changes to Form 6, the form used to register new voters. Therefore, comments made during an October 5 hearing could not be treated as approval or rejection of a modified form. This matters because the Election Commission had said on September 26 that a declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the court.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court had not approved the modified form. On Monday, he clarified that the court had only said it had not heard the matter. Justice Joymala Bagchi also said the October 5 statements should not be read as deciding whether the changes were valid.

The clarification leaves the form’s legal status unresolved in this case. Petitioners had alleged that the Election Commission represented the new Form 6 as having Supreme Court approval. The court asked that its words not be selectively used to support either side.

Form 6 is the application used to register new voters. It matters because people seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls use this form to provide the information needed for their registration. Any change to it can therefore affect how applicants enter the voter list.

The article focuses on a modified Form 6 introduced during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. It asked applicants whether they, their parents, or their grandparents had appeared in the last special intensive revision. Although the new declaration was not marked mandatory, applicants could not submit the online form without completing it.

The changes became controversial because Election Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu objected to them. They argued that the form could not be changed without amending the relevant rules. Section 28 of the 1950 Representation of the People Act says the Union government can amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6.

The modified Form 6 asks applicants about their family’s connection to the last special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Specifically, applicants must state whether they, their parents, or their grandparents were included in that earlier revision. This adds historical information to an application for registering as a new voter.

The declaration is not marked as mandatory on the form. However, the article says applicants cannot submit the online version without filling it in. That practical requirement made the change significant, especially because the form is used by people seeking entry into the electoral rolls.

Election Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu objected to this change. They said it could not be introduced without amending the rules. Section 28 of the 1950 Representation of the People Act gives the Union government power to amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6. The Supreme Court said it had not approved the modification.

Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected 14 times over a period of 10 months to decisions connected with the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. The figure came from reporting that led to petitions before the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Their objections were not limited to one form. They reportedly concerned changes to Form 6, appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, and the handling of voter data in Goa. The two commissioners also raised concerns about access to the digital electoral roll database.

In one written objection, Sandhu reportedly said the Election Commission had acted against the advice of both commissioners. He described the action as “unauthorised and illegal”. The objections became part of a wider dispute over whether decisions linked to the special intensive revision were being made without the knowledge or agreement of all commissioners.

If the special intensive revision wrongly excludes eligible citizens, those people could lose their place on the electoral rolls. That would threaten their ability to exercise their right to vote. The concern is especially serious because the revision affects the records used to determine who can participate in elections.

The article says the exercise has faced questions about whether its manner and pace could deny genuine electors their voting rights. It does not describe a specific individual who was excluded. Instead, it reports broader concerns raised since the revision began in June 2025.

The article also says wrongful exclusions could shape election outcomes. Protests have been held in several parts of the country, with calls for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign over the Election Commission’s handling of the exercise. Disputes over Form 6 and voter data add to concerns about how the revision is being conducted.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is an exercise to revise electoral rolls. In the article, it involves checking and updating voter records, including the process for registering new voters through Form 6. The exercise matters because electoral rolls determine whose names are available for participation in elections.

The SIR began in June 2025 and included a modified Form 6. The new form asks whether applicants, their parents, or grandparents were part of the last special intensive revision. Although the declaration is not labelled mandatory, online applicants cannot submit the form without completing it. This requirement triggered objections from Election Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu.

The article does not state a more specific official reason for launching the SIR. It reports that the exercise has faced questions about its manner and pace, amid fears that genuine electors could be excluded and election outcomes affected. Protests have followed in several parts of the country.

Section 28 of the 1950 Representation of the People Act says only the Union government can amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6. The immediate importance is legal authority: the Election Commission cannot independently change the rules for such forms if the Act reserves that power to the Union government.

This rule became central after Form 6 was modified for the special intensive revision. The new declaration asked about applicants’ own and family members’ participation in the last special intensive revision. Election Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu objected, arguing that the change required an amendment to the rules. The online form still required applicants to complete the declaration.

The article does not explain the broader policy reason for assigning this power to the Union government. In general, reserving rule-making authority in legislation creates a defined legal process and prevents an administrative body from changing its governing rules alone. The dispute therefore concerns both the form’s content and who lawfully approved it.