No adjudication on Form 6: SC says it neither approved nor rejected changes to voter enrolment form

The Supreme Court’s position was narrow but important: it had not approved the modified Form 6, and it had not disapproved it either. The court said the issue had not been decided when it heard the Bihar special intensive revision, or SIR, matter. This directly challenged the Election Commission’s claim that the change had court approval.

The disputed change requires applicants to declare whether their parents or grandparents appeared on rolls from the previous SIR. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the new form was not before the bench during the Bihar hearing. The court therefore made no ruling on its legality or validity.

The bench said the plea would be heard with similar SIR petitions on October 27. It also said it wanted records showing who made the modification. Until then, the court’s statement should not be treated as endorsement or rejection of the revised form.

Form 6 is an application used by an eligible person who wants inclusion in the electoral rolls. In practical terms, it is the form through which someone asks election authorities to add their name to the official voter list. The article focuses on a modified version used during a special intensive revision in Bihar and other states.

The new version added a declaration about family records. Applicants had to state whether their parents or grandparents appeared on rolls from the previous SIR. That requirement connected a person’s application with older electoral-roll entries and became the central point of dispute before the Supreme Court.

The article does not specify every category of applicant or the full filing process. It establishes that Form 6 is for eligible people seeking enrolment. Because electoral rolls are used during elections, any added requirement can affect how easily an applicant’s name enters the list.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a process for reviewing electoral rolls. The article does not provide a full formal definition or explain every step. It shows that the Election Commission was conducting an SIR in Bihar and using the modified Form 6 during that exercise. The process matters because it can affect which names appear on the rolls.

The modified form required an applicant to declare whether a parent or grandparent appeared on the previous SIR’s rolls. This creates a family link to an earlier electoral record. The article does not state the Commission’s detailed reason for adding the question. Its apparent mechanism is to connect a new application with older entries, but that purpose is an inference from the requirement, not an explanation supplied in the article.

The change became legally contested because the plea alleged it was introduced through election-panel software without the statutory amendment required under electoral rules. Similar SIR petitions are scheduled for hearing on October 27.

The article does not state how many voters or applicants were covered by the Bihar SIR. Therefore, it cannot establish a precise scale such as thousands or millions. It does show that the issue concerns electoral rolls in Bihar and that the modified Form 6 was being used in various states undergoing an SIR.

The process can operate at several levels. An individual applicant may face the new declaration about parents’ or grandparents’ names. If the same requirement is applied across a state’s revision, many applications could be affected. The key mechanism is the roll-revision exercise and the Form 6 application used within it, not a single private dispute.

The immediate case concerns the form and its legal basis, rather than a published voter count. The Supreme Court said similar SIR petitions would be heard on October 27. Those proceedings could clarify how broadly the disputed requirement applies, but the article provides no final number.

Electoral rolls determine who is recorded as eligible to participate in an election. If a person’s application is not accepted, or remains unresolved, the person’s name may not appear on the roll used for voting. The article does not describe a specific applicant who lost the ability to vote, so this is the possible consequence rather than a reported outcome.

The disputed mechanism is the added declaration about whether an applicant’s parents or grandparents appeared on a previous SIR roll. If an applicant cannot provide the requested link, or if the information is difficult to verify, the application could become harder to process. The article says the plea challenged this requirement and its legal basis.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the modified Form 6. It will hear the plea with similar pending SIR petitions on October 27. That hearing could determine whether the requirement remains in use, changes, or faces legal challenge, though the article gives no outcome.

The article presents the authority question as disputed. It reports that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi opposed the changes because they believed the Union government alone was empowered to make them. The plea also alleged that the new requirement needed a statutory amendment under the electoral rules.

The article links the internal process to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. That section provides for decision-making by the Election Commission. Where members disagree, the majority view prevails. The article says the implication of the commissioners’ objection was that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had made the modifications unilaterally, but it does not establish that as a final finding.

The Supreme Court asked to see records showing who changed the form. It has not decided the issue. The pending petitions may clarify both the authority to modify Form 6 and whether the internal process was followed.

Electoral rolls determine voting entitlement by recording the people accepted for participation in an election. Form 6 is part of that system: an eligible person uses it to seek inclusion. The article treats the roll as the controlling list because the dispute concerns how applicants are added during a special intensive revision.

The process works through an application and the election authorities’ consideration of the information supplied. In this case, the modified Form 6 asks about parents’ or grandparents’ names on earlier SIR rolls. The article says a plea alleged that this requirement was added through software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules.

The article does not set out all legal qualifications for voting, nor does it explain appeals or corrections. It does show why the dispute matters: changing the application used for enrolment can affect access to the electoral roll. The Supreme Court has not yet adjudicated the modified form.