सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फॉर्म‑6 में बदलावों को अस्वीकार किया, सीईसी की सेवानिवृत्ति‑पश्चात् सुरक्षा पर प्रश्न उठाए

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) distanced itself from the controversial alterations made to Form 6 for registering new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several States, shifting scrutiny to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Also Read: Protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar updated on October 5

“We are making it clear, any modifications to Form 6 have not been made by us,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, said.

Form 6 is a statutory document provided in the Schedule of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Modifications to Form 6 should be done through the proper lawmaking process, and not by unilateral administrative actions.

The alterations in Form 6 included a supplementary declaration form on additional linkage requirements for voter registration. New applicants have to declare whether they, their parents, or their grandparents were registered in the previous SIR electoral rolls. Further, a response to these mapping and linkage questions was made a strict prerequisite for submitting Form 6 applications.

The oral observation was made during the hearing of two petitions demanding the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of bias, administrative unilateralism, and procedural overreach during the SIR process.

Also Read: When Election Commission was rocked by internal disputes | Explained

‘Legal immunity’

Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed to how the CEC and Election Commissioners continue to enjoy immunity from legal proceedings even after demitting office, a protection not available to even judges.

Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act of 2023 provides that “no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner...”

“A protection when in office is always understood. But the ‘was’ in the provision is perhaps only protection with regard to the President. It does not apply even to judges... Look at the Judges Inquiry Act,” Justice Bagchi observed.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for petitioner Rakesh Singh, said the statute had “exalted the CEC to such a high position, perhaps higher than a Supreme Court judge”. Mr. Singh argued that Section 18 of the 2023 Act and the Constitution gave the CEC no individual title. He was the Chairman of the multi-member Commission and not the Commission itself, the senior counsel argued.

He urged the court to suspend the CEC or divest him of any authority till the Supreme Court took a final call on the petition.

“But then, who will conduct elections? You have to file petitions keeping in mind the working of the Constitution,” Justice Bagchi responded.

Mr. Singh submitted that it was a grave situation that threatened the very basis of democracy. He requested the court to grant an interim relief on the petition, saying the “country will burn”. He said, in the alternative, the court should at least include in its order that the poll bpdy should take decisions unanimously during the pendency of the case.

Issuing notice, the Chief Justice said the court would act on authenticated information regarding the allegations.

“We will examine the records, look into the particular records. We would like to see some responses [from the EC] first,” Chief Justice Kant said on the plea for interim orders. Justice Bagchi added that the Supreme Court cannot be asked to “put the cart before the horse and presume that all the EC orders were issued unilaterally”.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, pointed out that 30% of the electorate in Delhi and 25% of the electorate in West Bengal have been deleted in the SIR process. She submitted that lakhs of appeals were pending before the appellate tribunals in West Bengal.

“Your Lordships had supervised that [SIR]... Now, voters have been excluded from one election cycle already. There is another election cycle going to commence… See how SIR was conducted in Delhi. Form 6 has two new conditions added. They were circulated. Under the Schedule, Form 6 cannot be modified,” the senior advocate submitted.

The senior advocate said the franchise rights of the world’s largest democracy were under threat. The petition said the CEC was directly accountable under the law, and should be subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an “ordinary accused”.

“SIR is imposed by the government overseen by this court, and the CEC’s functioning is biased to say the least,” the senior counsel submitted.

The court tagged both petitions and indicated it may list the case for next week to hear the Commission’s side.

Published - October 05, 2026 02:43 pm IST

Powered by Nyaya 247 News