Supreme Court Says It Never Adjudicated on New Form 6 in Bihar SIR Case

Supreme Court Clarifies Its Position on Form 6

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not adjudicated on the validity of the modified Form 6 used by the Election Commission during electoral-roll revision exercises.

The clarification came while a three-judge bench was hearing a fresh petition concerning the functioning of the Election Commission and the introduction of additional requirements in the voter-registration process.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner referred to the Election Commission’s earlier communication suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the additional declaration attached to Form 6 in its May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR exercise.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the revised form was not before the court when it considered the Bihar SIR case. He emphasised that the court had not delivered a ruling either approving or rejecting the modified form.

The bench also cautioned lawyers against interpreting the court’s earlier observations as a definitive ruling on an issue that had not been examined.

The clarification is significant because it distinguishes the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Bihar SIR exercise from the separate question of whether the Election Commission’s subsequent changes to Form 6 were legally valid. <Cite refs={["turn239955search0","turn239955search1","turn239955search4"]}/>

What Is Form 6 and Why Is It Important?

Form 6 is the application used by eligible individuals to seek inclusion in electoral rolls as registered voters.

The form is an important part of the voter-registration system because it enables eligible citizens to apply for enrolment and participate in elections, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

The controversy concerns an additional declaration introduced alongside Form 6 for the SIR exercise. Under the revised process, applicants were asked to provide information concerning whether they or their family members appeared in electoral rolls prepared during an earlier intensive revision.

The requirement attracted scrutiny because critics questioned whether such an additional declaration could be introduced without following the prescribed legal procedure.

The petitioners have argued that changes affecting voter registration must comply with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the relevant statutory framework.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that Form 6 itself was not amended and that an additional declaration was introduced for the SIR process.

The legal question is whether the additional requirement was introduced through the appropriate procedure and whether its use is consistent with the governing rules. The Supreme Court has not yet decided that question. <Cite refs={["turn239955search2","turn239955search3","turn239955search4"]}/>

How the Controversy Began

The dispute intensified after the Election Commission issued a press release on September 26, 2026, suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the additional declaration in its May judgment concerning the Bihar SIR exercise.

The court’s observations during an October 5 hearing prompted further scrutiny of that interpretation. On October 12, the bench clarified that the revised Form 6 had not been considered in the earlier Bihar case because it did not exist in its present form when the judgment was delivered.

The distinction is central to the dispute. A court’s decision on the legality of a broader electoral-roll revision exercise does not automatically mean that every later administrative instruction or form introduced by the Election Commission has also been judicially examined.

The Supreme Court’s latest clarification therefore leaves the validity of the additional declaration open for consideration.

The issue has also drawn attention to internal disagreements reportedly raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over changes to the form and the procedure followed in introducing them. Those concerns have featured in the broader legal challenge to the Election Commission’s decision-making process. <Cite refs={["turn239955search1","turn239955search2","turn239955search4"]}/>

Fresh Petition Challenges Election Commission’s Functioning

The matter came before the Supreme Court through a fresh writ petition concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

The petition, filed by Priya Mishra and former Madhya Pradesh law minister P.C. Sharma, raises questions about the decision-making process within the three-member constitutional body, including allegations that certain decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other election commissioners.

The petitioners have also challenged the legality of changes associated with Form 6 and sought scrutiny of decisions and instructions allegedly issued without following the required procedure.

Among their requests are directions for the production of relevant official records, including minutes, correspondence and decision files, and for the Election Commission to reconsider disputed decisions in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws.

These are allegations and requests made by the petitioners; they have not been established as findings by the court.

The Supreme Court agreed to issue notice on the petition and scheduled the matter for October 27, alongside connected cases concerning the Election Commission and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proceedings could provide further clarity on the legal basis for the additional declaration and the decision-making process followed by the poll body. <Cite refs={["turn239955search1","turn239955search2","turn239955search4"]}/>

Election Commission’s Position and the Legal Questions Ahead

The Election Commission has maintained that it did not formally amend Form 6 itself but added an additional declaration for the SIR exercise.

That position is relevant to the legal dispute because the petitioners contend that the additional requirement could not lawfully be introduced without following the prescribed statutory procedure.

The court has not yet accepted or rejected either side’s position on the validity of the revised process.

The proceedings raise two principal questions: whether the additional declaration was introduced in accordance with the applicable electoral rules, and whether the decisions relating to its introduction followed the required process within the Election Commission.

A separate issue is whether the additional requirement creates practical difficulties for eligible citizens seeking registration as voters. Critics have expressed concern that the requirement could create obstacles, particularly for first-time applicants or those unable to establish links to earlier electoral rolls.

Such concerns must be assessed against the actual requirements, their legal basis and the safeguards available to applicants. The Supreme Court’s clarification does not itself establish that voters have been unlawfully excluded.

What Happens Next?

The next significant development is expected when the Supreme Court takes up the petition on October 27, 2026.

The court may examine the legal basis for the additional declaration, the procedure followed by the Election Commission and the records relevant to the petitioners’ allegations.

Until the court rules on the issue, its clarification should not be interpreted as either approval or rejection of the modified Form 6.

The case is also part of a broader debate over electoral transparency, voter-registration safeguards and the independence of the Election Commission. Its eventual outcome may help clarify the limits of administrative discretion when electoral procedures and statutory forms are changed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has clarified that it never adjudicated on the modified Form 6 in the Bihar SIR case because the revised form was not before it when the earlier judgment was delivered.

The clarification follows a dispute over the Election Commission’s suggestion that the court had endorsed an additional declaration attached to the voter-registration form. The ECI maintains that it added a declaration rather than formally amending Form 6, while petitioners have questioned whether the change complied with the applicable rules.

The court has agreed to examine the fresh petition, with the next hearing scheduled for October 27. Until then, the legality of the additional declaration remains unresolved.