SUPREME COURT REJECTS CLAIM OF JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENT FOR CHANGED VOTER FORM, OPENS FRESH SCRUTINY OF ELECTION COMMISSION’S RULES

October 12, 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had neither approved nor rejected the Election Commission of India’s alterations to Form 6, the application used to enrol new voters, making clear that its earlier judgment on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar could not be treated as judicial endorsement of the subsequent changes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the clarification while hearing a petition filed by Priya Mishra challenging changes to Form 6 introduced by the Election Commission during electoral-roll revision exercises across several states.

Justice Bagchi explained that the revised form had not existed when the court heard and decided the Bihar SIR matter on May 27. The modifications were introduced subsequently, in July, meaning that the court had not examined their legality during the earlier proceedings.

“When the Bihar SIR issue was heard and decided, the new Form 6 was not there. The new Form 6 was neither approved nor disapproved by us. But we will examine it now,” Justice Bagchi observed orally.

The clarification follows controversy over the Election Commission’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s earlier observations. During a hearing on October 5, Chief Justice Surya Kant had reportedly stated that the court had not made any modifications to Form 6. The petitioner’s counsel told the bench that the Election Commission had continued to justify the changes by referring to the earlier judgment, prompting a need to clarify the court’s position.

At the centre of the dispute is a supplementary declaration attached to Form 6 through the Election Commission’s digital registration system, ECINet. The revised process requires applicants to provide information linking themselves to previous electoral rolls under the SIR exercise. Applicants must indicate whether they, their parents or their grandparents were registered in earlier SIR electoral rolls, with responses to these questions made a prerequisite for submitting applications through the portal.

Form 6 is a statutory document prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is used by eligible individuals seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. The controversy concerns whether the additional declaration and its linkage requirements were introduced through the appropriate legal procedure or imposed through administrative and digital changes without the necessary statutory amendments.

The Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR had discussed the documentation framework used for verification during electoral-roll revision. However, the revised Form 6 and its subsequent declaration requirements were not before the court at that time. The latest clarification therefore establishes that the earlier ruling cannot be interpreted as approval of those later modifications.

The petitioner has challenged the changes on the ground that additional requirements for voter registration must comply with the statutory framework governing electoral rolls. The case raises questions about the extent to which the Election Commission can modify application procedures and introduce compulsory declarations through administrative directions or its digital platform.

The court’s observations do not amount to a final ruling that the altered Form 6 is illegal. Instead, the bench has made clear that the question remains open for examination and that the revised form’s validity must be assessed independently of the earlier Bihar SIR judgment.

The issue has broader implications for voter registration during the ongoing revision of electoral rolls in multiple states. Critics of the changes have argued that requiring applicants to establish links with earlier electoral rolls could create additional hurdles for people whose family records are incomplete or difficult to access. The Election Commission’s position has been that the declaration forms part of the framework governing the SIR process.

The central legal question is whether the additional requirements are consistent with the existing electoral rules and whether the procedure used to introduce them was lawful. The Supreme Court’s clarification ensures that the Election Commission cannot rely on the May 27 judgment as a decision specifically approving the revised Form 6.

With the bench indicating that it will now examine the issue, the controversy has moved towards a substantive judicial assessment of the changes. The eventual outcome could clarify the limits of administrative discretion in voter registration and establish whether modifications to statutory electoral forms must undergo a formal rule-making process before being made compulsory.