"Modified Form 6 not approved by us": CJI observes on modified form for enrolling new voters
Chief Justice Surya Kant clarifies the Supreme Court never approved a modified Form 6 for voter enrolment amidst allegations against the CEC.
In a significant development that has sent shockwaves through India's electoral landscape, the Supreme Court has clarified that it never granted approval for any modified version of Form 6, the document used for enrolling new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
The observation was made by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant during a high-stakes hearing on Monday. The court's statement directly challenges a previous claim made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding judicial backing for certain procedural changes.
"Let's Be Clear": CJI Demands Accountability
The tension in the courtroom escalated when CJI Surya Kant addressed the discrepancy regarding the voter enrolment forms. The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, expressed a desire to identify the source of the unauthorized changes.
"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," observed CJI Surya Kant.
This judicial clarification comes in the wake of a September 26 press statement issued by the Election Commission, which had asserted that the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR process. The court's current stance suggests a major contradiction between the poll panel's claims and the actual judicial record.
Allegations of Unilateral Decisions and Political Firestorm
The hearing was part of a plea seeking the suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The petition alleges that several critical decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally by the CEC, despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.
The legal argument presented by senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, centered on the legal requirement for ECI decisions to be unanimous or decided by a majority. Singh contended that the alleged unilateral actions by the CEC pose a fundamental threat to electoral democracy.
The controversy has ignited a fierce political debate:
- Congress Reaction: MP Jairam Ramesh accused the CEC of lying, alleging that Form 6 was deliberately modified to exclude "Gen Z" voters.
- Karnataka Minister's Critique: Minister Priyank Kharge slammed the CEC for misrepresenting court proceedings, questioning what citizens can trust if even the Supreme Court's record is being twisted.
- Civil Society Concerns: Activist Ashutosh Ranka noted that the ECI had reportedly withdrawn its previous press release claiming judicial approval, suggesting the CEC is now "under the bus."
Supreme Court Issues Notices to Election Commission
While the bench declined to pass an immediate ex-parte interim order to suspend the CEC—questioning the practical implications of such a move on election conduct—it has taken the matter very seriously. The court noted that it must first examine authenticated information before making any decisions that could annul existing orders.
The Supreme Court has issued formal notices to a wide array of officials, including:
- The Centre and the Election Commission of India
- CEC Gyanesh Kumar
- Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi
- Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg
- DG (IT) Seema Khanna
The court's next steps will focus on examining the records to determine exactly who authorized the modifications to the voter enrolment forms and whether the constitutional mandate for collective decision-making within the Commission was bypassed.