The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (EC) to submit records relating to decisions challenged in petitions alleging that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally, including with respect to the contentious revisions to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Monday (October 5) that it intended to determine whether the decisions in question were taken independently by the CEC or had the approval of the full Commission, either unanimously or by majority.
Also read: When State elects the people: Notebandi, votebandi and the inversion of democracy
“When the records are produced, we want to find out who authorised the changes to Form 6,” the CJI observed.
We did not approve Form 6 modification: CJI
The Supreme Court made it clear that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6 being used for voter enrolment during the SIR exercise. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court would examine the records to determine who authorised the changes to the form. This is significant in light of the EC’s recent claim that the revised declaration attached to the online Form 6 had the Supreme Court’s approval.
The controversy centres on changes made to the declaration section of Form 6, which is used by individuals seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. The issue gained prominence after reports emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the modifications, arguing that such changes could not be introduced without amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, by the Centre.
Following reports that the revised declaration had nevertheless been implemented for the SIR process, the EC issued a press statement on September 26 asserting that the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court in its May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR exercise.
Also read: EC dissent row: How RTI can unlock minutes, orders on SIR decisions
However, the apex court noted that it had never examined the revised declaration during the Bihar SIR proceedings because the changes were introduced only after the judgment was delivered. “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” CJI Surya Kant observed.
Under the revised declaration, applicants seeking registration as new voters are required to disclose whether they or their parents were mapped during an earlier SIR exercise. This requirement did not form part of the previous version of Form 6 used during similar revision exercises in other states.
No interim relief
However, the Court declined to grant interim relief sought by petitioners for the suspension of CEC Kumar. The bench said that if the CEC is suspended, the functioning of the EC will be stalled. “Who will conduct the elections?” the Bench remarked, adding that the EC has to work in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
Issuing a notice to the EC, the Bench sought its response to allegations that the CEC had taken decisions without securing the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. The court indicated that any decision found to have been taken without following the prescribed statutory process could be revisited.
“If records show some decision was not unanimous, etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra vires. Can we ex parte come to a decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi said.
Also read: Protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar continue; AISA activists, senior advocates held in Delhi
The Bench directed all respondents to file detailed replies and emphasised that the allegations must be addressed with clarity and transparency. “We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the Court,” the Bench said as it pointed out that the immunity granted to the CEC is something which even judges don’t have.
The petitions
One of the petitions, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks the suspension of the CEC pending disposal of the case, contending that such a measure is essential to preserve the EC’s collegiate structure.
The plea also requests that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi jointly oversee the EC’s functioning during any period of suspension, with all decisions requiring their concurrence.
It further seeks that any vacancy in the EC be filled on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.
Also read: SC split on CEC appointment law: Justice Datta says EC must be seen as independent
In a separate petition, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, alleging dereliction of duty.