The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, which is used to enroll new voters on electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed while hearing a plea seeking the suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
“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,” CJI Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
ECI had said SC upheld Form 6 declaration
In a press statement issued on September 26 following a key meeting, the Election Commission had said, “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.”
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s observation, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh targeted CEC Gyanesh Kumar, saying, “Obviously and very clearly the CEC lied. Form 6 was deliberately modified by the CEC himself to delete Gen Z voters of whom the PM is simply terrified.”
Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge also alleged that the CEC was misrepresenting what had been argued and heard before the apex court.
“First Form 6. Now even the Supreme Court record. Gaddar Gyanesh now appears to be misrepresenting what was actually argued and heard before the Supreme Court. If even court proceedings are being twisted to suit a narrative, what exactly can citizens still trust the Election Commission to get right?” Priyank Kharge said.
CJP activist Ashutosh Ranka claimed that the Election Commission’s earlier press note had since been withdrawn.
“Hilarious. ECI has apparently taken down the Sept 26 press release, which claimed that SC had upheld the Form 6 order. Gyanesh has been thrown under the bus. Gyanesh, it’s done bro!,” he said.
SC refuses ex-parte suspension of CEC
The Supreme Court meanwhile refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions relating to the SIR of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally.
The bench said the Election Commission and other respondents must first be heard.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
“Let’s first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…,” the bench observed.
The petition relied on a report claiming that 14 crucial SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought the immediate suspension of the CEC. He argued that the alleged unilateral decisions posed a serious threat to electoral democracy.
Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that decisions of the ECI were required to be unanimous or, where the members differed, taken by majority.
When Singh sought the CEC’s suspension, the bench questioned the feasibility of such a step, observing that it could stall the functioning of the poll panel.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked.
Singh replied that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions. The bench said it would first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents.
Plea alleges unilateral exercise of ECI powers
CJI Kant said the statutory framework was mandatory and observed, “If there is any violation, we will undo.”
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the court could grant such relief without first hearing the ECI. He said that if the records ultimately showed that decisions had not been unanimous, the court could declare them ultra vires.
The CJI also cautioned that the court could not pass an order solely based on newspaper reports.
The plea challenges the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.
It has sought a direction against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested under Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.
14 objections cited by petitioners
The petition relies on at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without the Commission’s approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for more than a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners.
A key grievance concerns the alteration of Form 6 during the SIR of electoral rolls. Commissioner Joshi had allegedly objected that the form could not be changed to require SIR-linked disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The objection was subsequently endorsed by Sandhu.
The petition also raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet/ECINet by statutory field-level authorities.
Joshi had proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the authority of the ECI’s Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers.
Sandhu allegedly questioned who had authorised the filing of those appeals and under what authority.
The plea further relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.
Petition seeks safeguards for electoral-roll data
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, a direction against further substantive alteration of Form 6, and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication.
The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and requiring the Commission’s business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners.
(with ANI inputs)
