Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday clarified that the Supreme Court has not approved any modified version of Form 6 used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), while hearing a petition seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The observation of the CJI assumes significance because the Election Commission of India last week claimed that the new declaration annexed to the online Form 6 for the ongoing SIR process in some states has been approved by the Supreme Court.

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.

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].

Today, the CJI made this fact clear.

"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.

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.

The bench comprising the CJI, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Adv Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking quashing of the 14 decisions which were allegedly taken unilaterally. The petitioner has sought constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts.

The petitioner also sought directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and other officials found responsible for an alleged breach of official duty. For context, Section 32 provides punishment for specified breaches of official duty in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.

During the hearing, the CJI told Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, that the prayers in the petition appeared to be omnibus and "jumbled up". However, Guruswamy asserted that she stood by the prayers. The bench ultimately issued notice on the petition, and tagged it with a similar matter challenging the ECI decisions.

Related - Is ECI Correct In Saying Supreme Court Upheld Its New Form 6 Declaration?

Case : Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026