Supreme Court says it never approved the modified Form 6, issues notice to the EC
The EC said the Court had cleared a new question on the voter form. The Court says it did not. Who changed the form?
Published 6 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
On 5 October 2026 a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6 used by the Election Commission of India (EC) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. "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," the CJI said. The Bench issued notice on a writ petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, argued by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, and tagged it with a related petition challenging the EC's decisions. Pratidin reported on 2 October that the EC had dropped the added question; the new development is the Court's statement and notice.
Form 6 is the statutory application for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The modified declaration asked applicants to state whether they or their parents had been mapped in the previous SIR, a question earlier versions did not carry. In a press note of 26 September 2026 the EC said the declaration was consistent with, and approved by, the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR. Reports say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected that a statutory form could not be altered without amending the 1960 Rules. The petition asks the Court to declare decisions and software changes made by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the full Commission void, and seeks his prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which punishes breach of official duty in preparing electoral rolls.
The case raises two questions. One is process: Article 324 gives the EC superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls, but the forms are fixed by rules that the Central Government makes under Section 28 of the 1950 Act after consulting the EC, so an administrative change to a statutory form is open to legal challenge. The other is accountability inside a three-member Commission. Section 18 of the 2023 law on the CEC and Election Commissioners says business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible and otherwise by majority, while Section 16 bars civil and criminal proceedings against them for acts in the course of official duty. An opinion article in The Indian Express on 6 October argues that asking deleted voters to re-enrol through Form 6, a form meant for new voters, forces a false declaration, an offence under Section 31 of the 1950 Act, and proposes a separate Form 6X.
Prelims facts
- On 5 October 2026 a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6 and issued notice on a plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
- The modified Form 6 declaration asked whether the applicant or their parents had been mapped in the previous SIR; the EC had claimed on 26 September 2026 that the Court's May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment approved it.
- Form 6 (inclusion), Form 7 (objection to inclusion or deletion) and Form 8 (shifting and correction) are prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, made under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950.
- RP Act, 1950: Section 31 punishes false declarations with up to one year, fine or both; Section 32 punishes officials' breach of duty in roll preparation with three months to two years and fine.
- Section 18 of the 2023 CEC and ECs Act: business to be done unanimously as far as possible, otherwise by majority; Section 16 gives immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for official acts.
Quick recall
- What did the Supreme Court say about Form 6 on 5 October 2026?
- That it had not approved the modified Form 6, and it would like to see who modified it when the record is produced.
- Which Bench heard the Form 6 plea?
- CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- What extra declaration did the modified Form 6 seek?
- Whether the applicant or their parents had been mapped in the previous Special Intensive Revision.
- Under which rules is Form 6 prescribed?
- The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, made under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950.
- What does Section 32 of the RP Act, 1950 punish?
- Breach of official duty in preparing or revising electoral rolls: three months to two years and fine.
- What does Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950 punish?
- False statements or declarations in connection with electoral rolls: up to one year, fine or both.
- How does the EC decide when its members disagree?
- By majority; Section 18 of the 2023 Act says business is to be unanimous as far as possible, otherwise by majority.
- What is the Form 6X proposal?
- An Indian Express opinion piece's idea of a separate form to restore deleted voters, so they need not declare falsely that they are new applicants.
Prelims practice question
With reference to the preparation of electoral rolls in India, consider the following statements:
1. The forms for claims and objections, such as Form 6, are prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
2. Rules under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 are made by the Election Commission of India without any role for the Central Government.
3. Making a false declaration in connection with the preparation of an electoral roll is a punishable offence under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is correct: Form 6 and the other forms are in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Statement 2 is wrong: under Section 28 of the 1950 Act, the Central Government makes the rules after consulting the Election Commission. Statement 3 is correct: Section 31 punishes false statements or declarations with imprisonment up to one year, fine or both.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Election Commission's powers and accountability in preparing electoral rolls
- How to use this
Show that the EC's Article 324 power over roll revision operates within the RP Act and the 1960 Rules, using the Form 6 episode as evidence.
- Form 6 is prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, made by the Centre under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950 after consulting the EC.
- On 5 October 2026 the Supreme Court said it never approved the modified Form 6 asking whether applicants or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR.
- Section 31 punishes false declarations; critics say forcing deleted voters into Form 6 compels them to declare they are new applicants.
On electoral reforms proposed by the EC; the Form 6 controversy adds a reform demand for rule-based changes to roll procedures, though the 2016 proposals are not covered here.
The right to vote is a statutory right under the RP Acts; the Form 6 case shows how forms and rules made under those Acts shape that right.
Mains practice question
The controversy over the modified Form 6 raises questions about process and collegial decision-making in the Election Commission of India. Examine. (250 words)
Model answer
On 5 October 2026 the Supreme Court said it had never approved the modified Form 6, which asked applicants whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR, contradicting the EC's claim of 26 September, and issued notice on a plea against the CEC.
Questions of process
- Form 6 is a statutory form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, made by the Centre under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950 after consulting the EC.
- Changing the declaration administratively, or through software, bypasses that rule-making route.
- Article 324 gives the EC superintendence of rolls, but that power works within the law, not around it.
- An Indian Express opinion piece argues that pushing deleted voters into Form 6 forces false declarations, punishable under Section 31; it proposes a Form 6X.
Questions of collegiality
- Section 18 of the 2023 Act requires decisions to be unanimous as far as possible, otherwise by majority.
- Reports say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the change.
- The petition calls decisions taken without the full Commission void and seeks prosecution under Section 32.
- Section 16 of the 2023 Act bars civil and criminal proceedings against the CEC and ECs for official acts, which limits the criminal relief sought.
Why it matters
- Electoral rolls decide who can vote under Article 326; procedural shortcuts risk wrongful exclusion.
- Public trust in the EC depends on transparent, recorded decisions.
Way forward
- Amend forms only through notified rules, with public consultation.
- Record and publish dissent within the Commission.
- Create a clear route, such as a separate form, to restore wrongly deleted voters.
The Court's scrutiny can strengthen the EC by reaffirming that even a constitutional body acts through law and collective decision.
The basics
Why this matters
Before anyone can vote, their name has to be on the electoral roll. The Supreme Court's statement that it never approved the modified Form 6 puts a spotlight on that machinery: who designs the forms, who can change them, and how a multi-member Election Commission takes decisions.
The constitutional frame
Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections in the Election Commission, explained in Article 324 and the Election Commission. Article 325 says there is one general roll for each constituency and no one can be excluded on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. Article 326 makes elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies based on adult suffrage: every citizen aged 18 or above who is not disqualified by law can register. The detailed law is in the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
- 1Form 6Application for inclusion of a name in the roll
- 2Form 7Objection to a proposed inclusion, or request to delete a name
- 3Form 8Shifting of residence, correction of entries and similar changes
- 4Rule-making powerCentral Government, after consulting the EC, under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950
How a name gets on the roll
- 1ApplyThe applicant files Form 6 with a declaration about age, citizenship and residence.
- 2VerifyA booth level officer checks the details on the ground.
- 3DecideThe Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) accepts or rejects the claim.
- 4AppealA person aggrieved by the ERO's decision can appeal under Section 24 of the 1950 Act.
Ordinary updates and intensive revisions
Rolls are usually revised summarily: the existing roll is published and people file claims and objections. An intensive revision prepares the roll afresh through house-to-house enumeration. The current exercise, described in Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, is of the intensive kind, which is why questions about how deleted voters return to the roll have become so sharp.
- Existing roll is the starting point
- Changes come through claims and objections
- Routine, usually annual
- Roll is prepared afresh
- House-to-house enumeration
- Every elector has to be re-verified
Who decides inside the EC
Since 1993 the Commission has had a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. The 2023 law says business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible and otherwise by majority, which is why reported objections by two Commissioners matter. See Decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission.
Go deeper
In one line: The Supreme Court said on 5 October 2026 that it never approved the EC's modified Form 6, which asked new applicants whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR, and issued notice on a plea against the CEC.
Why it matters for UPSC
The story sits on core GS2 ground: the Election Commission's powers, the Representation of the People Act, electoral rolls and institutional accountability. UPSC asked in Mains 2026 about the EC's position while revising rolls.
The core idea
The EC controls rolls under Article 324 and the Election Commission, but the forms people fill are fixed by rules under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, the EC added a question to Form 6 and said the Court had approved it. The Court denied that. A petition says the CEC acted without the full Commission, raising the rules on Decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 5 October 2026: Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- 26 September 2026: EC press note claiming Court approval.
- May 2026: Supreme Court judgment on the Bihar SIR.
- Section 28, RP Act, 1950: Centre makes rules after consulting the EC.
- Section 31: false declaration, up to 1 year, fine or both.
- Section 32: official's breach of duty, 3 months to 2 years and fine.
- 2023 Act: Section 16 immunity, Section 18 majority rule.
Where to go next
- Article 324 and the Election Commission: the constitutional source of the EC's power.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950: the law that governs electoral rolls.
- Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls: what an intensive revision is and why it is contested.
- Decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission: how the CEC and two ECs are meant to decide.
Go deeper: the EC's discretion versus the rule of law
The EC's defenders point to Article 324, which the Supreme Court has long read as a reservoir of power to fill gaps where the law is silent, discussed in Article 324 and the Election Commission. On this view, refining a declaration to make an intensive revision workable is an administrative detail, and the EC needs room to act quickly before elections.
The petitioners and critics argue the opposite. Where Parliament or the Central Government has spoken, the EC cannot override it. Form 6 is a statutory form under rules made through Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950; changing its declaration by an internal decision or a software update sidesteps that process. They add that the EC's own claim of court approval has now been contradicted by the Court.
A second debate is about voters who were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. If they are told to use Form 6, a form for new applicants, an opinion article in The Indian Express argues they would be making a false declaration, punishable under Section 31. It proposes a Form 6X for restoration. The counter-view is that adding forms needs a rule amendment and time, which an ongoing revision may not allow.
The third debate is internal. Section 18 of the 2023 Act requires unanimity as far as possible and otherwise a majority, covered in Decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission. If two Commissioners objected, as reports say, a decision taken by the CEC alone would be hard to defend. Section 16 shields the CEC and ECs from prosecution for official acts, which limits the criminal relief the petition seeks.
Article 324 and the Election Commission
The constitutional source of the EC's power over rolls.
In one line: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and of elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission.
What the Article says
The Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such other Election Commissioners as the President fixes. The CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds of a Supreme Court judge. Article 325 provides one general roll per constituency without discrimination on religion, race, caste or sex, and Article 326 sets adult suffrage at 18.
How courts read it
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) the Supreme Court described Article 324 as a reservoir of power that the EC can use where the law is silent. The same line of cases says the EC must act within laws made by Parliament, not against them.
Why it is in the news
The EC's changes to Form 6 test that boundary: plenary power under Article 324 versus a statutory form under the 1960 Rules.
Where to go next
Article 324 and the Election Commission: every story that connects to it (2)
Representation of the People Act, 1950
The law that governs who gets on the electoral roll.
In one line: The 1950 Act deals with electoral rolls and seat allocation; the 1951 Act deals with the conduct of elections and disputes.
Key provisions on rolls
- Section 16: grounds for disqualification from registration, such as not being a citizen.
- Section 21: preparation and revision of rolls, including special revision.
- Section 24: appeals against decisions of the Electoral Registration Officer.
- Section 28: the Central Government makes rules after consulting the EC; the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are made under it.
- Section 31: false declarations, punishable with up to one year, fine or both.
- Section 32: breach of official duty in roll preparation, three months to two years and fine.
Why it is in the news
The petition seeks prosecution of the CEC under Section 32, and an opinion piece warns that misuse of Form 6 could expose voters to Section 31. Courts have held that the right to vote is a statutory right flowing from such laws.
Where to go next
Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
Why an intensive revision makes form design so important.
In one line: An intensive revision prepares the electoral roll afresh, with every elector re-verified, instead of updating the existing roll.
How it differs
In a summary revision, the existing roll is published and people file claims (Form 6) and objections (Form 7). In an intensive revision, officials go house to house and the roll is rebuilt. The EC's current Special Intensive Revision began in Bihar and has since been extended to other States in phases.
Why it is contested
Rebuilding the roll can catch dead, shifted and duplicate entries, but it can also leave out eligible voters who cannot produce documents in time. Questions such as whether a person or their parents appeared in an earlier SIR shift the burden onto the voter.
Why it is in the news
The Supreme Court ruled on the Bihar SIR in May 2026. The EC cited that judgment to defend the modified Form 6; on 5 October 2026 the Court said it had not approved the modification.
Where to go next
Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls: every story that connects to it (2)
Decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission
How the CEC and two Election Commissioners are meant to decide.
In one line: The Election Commission has been a three-member body since 1993, and the law requires it to decide unanimously as far as possible and otherwise by majority.
History
The Commission had only a CEC until 1989. Two additional Commissioners were appointed in October 1989 and the posts were abolished in January 1990. Two Election Commissioners were appointed again in 1993. In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) the Supreme Court upheld the multi-member structure and decision by majority.
The 2023 law
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 replaced the 1991 law. Section 18 keeps the unanimity-or-majority rule. Section 16 bars civil and criminal proceedings against present or former CEC and ECs for acts in the course of official duty.
Why it is in the news
The petition alleges the CEC took decisions, including on Form 6, without the full Commission, and reports say two Commissioners objected.
Where to go next
Take the 6 October 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers