Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the new Form 6 declaration (for the registration of new voters), and that it is yet to adjudicate on its validity.

The Court orally stated that the Chief Justice of India's remarks of last week only meant to convey that the Bihar SIR judgment of May 2026 did not examine the new Form 6 as it was not in existence then.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made these oral remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by one Priya Mishra concerning the Election Commission of India.

Advocate Narendra Mishra for the petitioner submitted that the CJI had last week denied the claim of Election Commission of India that the Supreme Court had upheld the new Form 6.

"On 5 October, it was already declared by this court, Form 6 is not approved by Court. But ECI said it was approved by Supreme Court. With regard to this, I am seeking..."Mishra said.

Justice Bagchi then responded, "There is no adjudication on the new Form 6. That is all we have said. Whether approved or not approved.."

The CJI then chided the counsels, "Don't pick up words like this..."

Justice Bagchi further clarified, "What the Hon'ble Chief Justice said was that when the Bihar SIR judgment was delivered, new Form 6 was not there. That does not either say it is approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court. We will examine it."

The bench agreed to issue notice on the petition, and kept it to October 27 along with connected petitions filed against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

It may be noted that the changes to the new Form 6 declaration had become a point of controversy after it emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the changes citing the reason that they cannot be carried out without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. After The Indian Express reported that the new Form 6 declaration was implemented despite the objections of the Election Commissioners, the ECI issued a press release on September 26 suggesting that the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration in the May 2026 judgment relating to Bihar SIR.

As per the new declaration, persons seeking to register as a new voter must state if they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. Such a statement was not sought in the earlier Form 6 used in the SIR of other states.

However, the Supreme Court had no occasion to examine the new Form 6 declaration in the Bihar SIR judgment, as it was introduced after the judgment [LiveLaw had earlier published an article pointing out this aspect].

What is the present petition about?

A writ petition has been filed challenging the alleged failure of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to follow the requirement of collective decision-making in the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging that around 14 decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners over a period of approximately 10 months.

The petition, filed by Priya Mishra and former Madhya Pradesh Law Minister PC Sharma under Article 32 of the Constitution, raises questions concerning the functioning of the ECI, the legality of changes made to voter registration forms and the electoral roll revision process, including the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The petitioners have sought directions to quash decisions, orders, notifications and executive instructions allegedly issued in violation of the mandatory procedure for collective decision-making. They have also sought a direction to the ECI to reconsider such decisions in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework.

The petition alleges that the ECI, a three-member constitutional body comprising the CEC and two Election Commissioners, is required to function through collective deliberation, with decisions taken in accordance with the applicable procedure and majority requirements.

It refers to alleged objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi regarding decisions and official communications purportedly issued without their knowledge or approval.

The petitioners have sought the production of original records, including minutes, agendas, voting records, dissenting notes, correspondence and decision files relating to the 14 decisions in question.

The petition also questions changes allegedly introduced in Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible citizens to register as voters.

According to the petition, a declaration linked to the previous SIR was incorporated into the online Form 6 process, requiring applicants to indicate whether they or their parents or grandparents appeared in an electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR.

The petitioners contend that the statutory form could not have been modified without following the prescribed procedure under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The plea relies on alleged objections recorded by Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, who reportedly questioned the legality of the changes and called for the matter to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules.

Case : Priya Mishra v. Union of India | WP (c) 1291/2026

Tags: