Supreme Court Questions Changes to Voter Form 6, Says It Never Approved Modified Version

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought clarity over how changes appeared in the voter registration process for first-time electors, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant making it clear that the court had never sanctioned any altered version of Form 6.

The issue surfaced during a hearing on petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant indicated that the circumstances surrounding the changes would be examined once the Election Commission places its report before the court.

The controversy centres on Form 6, the statutory application used by people seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls for the first time.

An additional section appeared in the Election Commission’s online version of the form, seeking information about an applicant’s parents in relation to the last Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The change became contentious because the statutory Form 6 itself had not been formally amended.

Supreme Court wants record of who made the changes

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in one of the petitions, drew the bench’s attention to the disputed changes and referred to an earlier report concerning the manner in which the revised online form was used.

She argued that the additional requirements had been incorporated into Form 6 despite the absence of a corresponding amendment to the statutory framework governing the form.

Guruswamy cited Delhi as an example and told the court that forms containing the additional requirements had been circulated and had subsequently been relied upon in matters concerning electoral-roll entries.

The CJI responded by drawing a clear distinction between the court’s orders and the changes introduced through the Election Commission’s online system.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” the Chief Justice said, adding that once the commission’s report is submitted, the court would want to determine who made the alterations and what exactly was changed.

The online form included questions linked to SIR.

The dispute arose after the Election Commission’s digital version of Form 6 began carrying an additional section concerning the applicant’s parents and their status in relation to the previous SIR exercise.

The statutory form, however, remained unchanged.

The Election Commission subsequently removed the SIR-related declaration from its ECINET portal in states where the revision exercise had already been completed.

On September 26, the poll panel said that outside the SIR period, the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used.

The development has raised questions over whether an online application interface can incorporate requirements that do not appear in the statutory form without a corresponding legal amendment.

Petition alleges unauthorised digital alteration.

The issue forms part of a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and argued before the bench by Guruswamy.

The petition alleges that Form 6 was digitally altered on the ECINET portal in July 2026 and claims that the change was made without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to the plea, the altered version imposed additional conditions on young people applying to become voters for the first time.

The petition further claims that Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently recorded on August 13 that the modification was “unauthorised and illegal” and directed that it be withdrawn.

The plea alleges, however, that the disputed version remained available on the portal despite the direction.

These allegations are part of the petition and have not been conclusively adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Plea raises wider questions over electoral authority

The petitioners contend that the Election Commission could not unilaterally alter a statutory form without legislative authority or a formal change to the rules governing electoral registration.

They have argued that the alleged modification created additional hurdles for eligible first-time voters and subjected applicants to requirements that were not contained in the prescribed form.

The plea also makes serious allegations against the Chief Election Commissioner, claiming that deliberate interference with electoral-roll procedures would fall outside the protection ordinarily associated with official functions if such conduct were established.

It consequently seeks to attribute personal criminal liability for what it describes as an unauthorised alteration.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the truth of these allegations.

The court awaits the Election Commission’s report.

The immediate focus of the proceedings is now the Election Commission’s response.

The CJI’s remarks indicate that the court intends to examine the administrative trail behind the disputed changes rather than assume who was responsible for them.

The eventual report could therefore become significant in determining when the online version of Form 6 was altered, under whose authority the changes were introduced, why the additional SIR-related information was sought and why the modified version was subsequently removed.

The case has brought renewed attention to the distinction between statutory election forms and their digital implementation, particularly at a time when an increasing share of voter-registration procedures is conducted online.