The Form 6 controversy stems from the ECI's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct the SIR but says it did not approve a modified Form 6.
The Court is seeking ECI records to determine who authorised the disputed changes.
Form 6 Controversy: How An ECI Order Reached The Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court is examining how an additional SIR declaration came to be attached to the ECI's statutory Form 6 after the Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of the voter registration form
Summary
The controversy over changes to Form 6, the statutory application used to enrol new voters, has reached the Supreme Court after questions were raised over how an additional declaration linked to the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) appeared on the online form. The issue came under scrutiny after the ECI said the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court, only for Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to clarify on October 5 that the Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6.
The dispute has its roots in the ECI's Bihar SIR order of June 24, 2025, and centres on whether the additional declaration used during the revision could be attached to Form 6 without a formal amendment to the statutory rules. The Supreme Court is now seeking records from the ECI to establish who authorised the changes.
June 2025: ECI Orders SIR In Bihar
On June 24, 2025, the ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across Bihar, citing factors including migration, urbanisation, unreported deaths and concerns over duplicate or ineligible entries. Under the exercise, people seeking inclusion who were not on the 2003 electoral roll had to provide specified documents and complete additional paperwork.
The Bihar SIR was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court. On May 27, 2026, the Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct the exercise, ruling that it was within the Commission's authority under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act.
However, the judgment did not specifically approve a modification to the statutory Form 6. This distinction later became central to the dispute.
Advertisement
September-October 2026: Form 6 Row Reaches SC
On September 23, the Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections over several decisions, including issues concerning Form 6. The ECI subsequently maintained that decisions taken by the Commission were unanimous.
On September 26, the ECI said the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would apply outside the SIR period.
The ECI removed the declaration from online Form 6 in states where the SIR exercise had concluded on September 30. The controversy then came directly before the Supreme Court on October 5 during a hearing concerning allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The ECI removed the declaration from online Form 6 in states where the SIR exercise had concluded on September 30. The controversy then came directly before the Supreme Court on October 5 during a hearing concerning allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Advertisement
CJI Surya Kant said, “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” and said the Court wanted to examine the ECI's records to determine who had authorised the changes. The Court issued notice to the ECI and Centre on the broader plea alleging unilateral decision-making and sought the Commission's response.
Published At: