The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 used by the Election Commission during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and sought the poll panel's response on the issue.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it wanted to examine records to ascertain who had made the changes to the form.
"Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it," Chief Justice Surya Kant said.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenging decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly introduced by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
The plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, was taken up in the wake of a recent report alleging that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes made during the SIR, including modifications to Form 6 requiring details of an applicant's ancestry and a link to the previous SIR.
Form 6 is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.
The bench told senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, that the prayers in the PIL appeared to be "jumbled up". It issued notice on the plea and tagged it with another PIL filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh on the issue.
The development comes days after the EC, in a September 26 press release, said the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration in its May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR.
Tripathi's plea, however, alleges that the changes to Form 6 were introduced through the EC's software without following the statutory procedure required under the electoral rules. It further claims that the two other Election Commissioners had objected to the changes.
The plea further alleges that on August 13-14, EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu recorded that the changes to Form 6 were "unauthorised and illegal" and should be rescinded immediately.
It also states that Sandhu recorded that DG-IT Seema Khanna had "no legal authority" to curtail the access of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
The plea further contends that any amendment to the prescribed statutory forms for registration under Rules 13 and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, including Form 6, requires a formal statutory notification by the Central Government.
"In May 2026, a proposal was mooted within the Commission to add an intrusive clause to Form 6 (the statutory form for registering new voters), demanding whether the applicant's parents or grandparents featured in the last SIR roll (conducted in the early 2000s)," the plea stated.
According to the plea, on May 16, 2026, EC Vivek Joshi formally noted on file that Form 6 is a statutory instrument under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and cannot be amended without the Union Government making formal rule amendments through a Gazette Notification. On May 19, Sandhu formally concurred, it alleged.
The plea alleges that the Chief Election Commissioner's actions violated the statutory requirement of collective decision-making under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
It also seeks criminal proceedings against Kumar and other officials, alleging breach of official duty.
Tripathi has sought a writ or direction quashing the alleged unauthorised modifications made to Form 6 on the ECINet/ERONet portal, requiring ancestry and last-SIR declarations. The plea also seeks directions for the immediate restoration of the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and for all eligible adults to be permitted to register as voters on the basis of the original statutory requirements.
The petition has raised additional concerns over electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal. It alleges that the EC's software did not have a provision to restore 97 eligible electors in Goa despite directions for their verification.
In West Bengal, the petitioner has alleged that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the EC's name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers, without authorisation from the other two Election Commissioners or the state's chief electoral officer.
(With inputs from PTI)