New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, the form used to enroll new voters in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation while hearing a plea seeking the suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions in the conduct of SIR.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified,” CJI Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
The clarification came days after the Election Commission, in a September 26 press statement issued following a meeting of the full Commission, said that “the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. It also said that during the non-SIR period, the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used.
The Supreme Court’s observation has since triggered political reactions, with Opposition leaders questioning the Election Commission’s earlier reference to the court’s position on the Form 6 declaration.
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh alleged that the CEC had misrepresented the court’s position, saying, “Obviously and very clearly the CEC lied. Form 6 was deliberately modified by the CEC himself to delete Gen Z voters of whom the PM is simply terrified.”
Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge also alleged that the CEC was misrepresenting what was heard before the Supreme Court.
“First Form 6. Now even the Supreme Court record. Gaddar Gyanesh now appears to be misrepresenting what was actually argued and heard before the Supreme Court. If even court proceedings are being twisted to suit a narrative, what exactly can citizens still trust the Election Commission to get right?” Kharge said.
CJP activist Ashutosh Ranka claimed that the Election Commission had since taken down its September 26 press statement, which had said that the Supreme Court had upheld the SIR-related Form 6 declaration.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions relating to SIR were taken unilaterally. The bench said the Election Commission and other respondents would have to be heard before any such relief could be considered.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
“Let’s first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision,” the bench observed.
The petition relied on a report claiming that 14 crucial SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections allegedly recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought the immediate suspension of the CEC, arguing that the alleged unilateral decisions posed a serious threat to electoral democracy. Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that decisions of the ECI were required to be unanimous or, where the members differed, taken by majority.
When Singh sought the CEC’s suspension, the bench questioned the practical implications of such an order and asked, “Who will conduct the elections?”
Singh responded that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions. The bench, however, said it would first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents.
CJI Kant observed that the statutory framework was mandatory and said, “If there is any violation, we will undo.” Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the court could grant such relief without hearing the ECI, saying that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could declare them ultra vires.
The CJI further cautioned that the court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The plea challenges the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism prescribed by law. It contends that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.
The petition cited at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners.
One of the key grievances concerns the alteration of Form 6 during SIR. Commissioner Joshi had allegedly objected that the form could not be changed to require SIR-linked disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The objection was subsequently endorsed by Sandhu, according to the petition.
The petition also raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet and ECINet by statutory field-level authorities. Joshi had proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the authority of the ECI’s Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. Sandhu allegedly questioned who had authorised the filing of the appeals and under what authority.
The plea further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, a direction against further substantive alteration of Form 6, and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication.
The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and requiring the Commission’s business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners.