Chief Justice Surya Kant told India's Supreme Court on Monday that no modified version of Form 6—the document used to add names to electoral rolls—had ever received judicial approval, sharpening a dispute over how the Election Commission is running the nationwide Special Intensive Revision.
The remark came as a three-judge bench heard petitions alleging that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took at least 14 SIR-related decisions without the concurrence of fellow commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The court declined to suspend Kumar at the interim stage but issued notices to the commission, the Union government and senior officials.
What the bench weighed
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, argued that Kumar should step aside immediately under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, which calls for unanimous commission decisions where possible and majority votes otherwise.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the court could act before reviewing records, saying judges could restrain specific decisions later if documents showed procedural breaches. CJI Kant said the court would examine files rather than rely on newspaper accounts, but he drew a bright line on Form 6.
"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us," Kant said, according to reporters in the courtroom. "When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it."
The Form 6 fight
During the ongoing SIR, the commission added an extra declaration page to online Form 6 asking applicants whether they or their parents appeared on rolls during the previous intensive revision. Election Commissioner Sandhu and Joshi objected, saying the change required amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, petitioners alleged.
The Election Commission has maintained it did not alter the statutory form itself and that a Bihar-focused protocol approved during last year's revision—and discussed in the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on that state's rolls—authorized the declaration. Opposition leaders seized on Monday's hearing to accuse the poll body of misrepresenting the court's position.
A connected petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, argued by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, seeks quashing of the 14 disputed decisions and an independent inquiry into alleged centralization of voter databases and large-scale deletions. Petitioners claim roughly 130 million names were removed across states during the exercise, a figure the commission disputes.
Streets and schedules
Monday's session unfolded as Delhi police reported new arrests following weekend protests demanding Kumar's resignation over SIR transparency. The court's refusal to grant immediate suspension leaves Kumar in office while responses are filed, but the Form 6 clarification gives opposition parties a fresh line of attack ahead of planned October 10 demonstrations.
The bench directed that Tripathi's case be heard alongside Singh's plea. Election officials now face court-ordered explanations on both the commission's internal voting practices and the legal basis for the Form 6 declaration, with the next hearings expected after respondents submit affidavits.