Chief Justice of India Surya Kant today stated that the Supreme Court has not approved any modified version of Form 6, which is used for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. This clarification directly contradicts earlier assertions made by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The apex court's observation came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petition sought to quash 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, along with requests for a judicial probe and prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Controversial Changes to Voter Declaration Form
Under the modified declaration, new voters seeking registration are now required to state whether they or their parents were previously mapped in the Special Intensive Revision. This specific requirement was not part of earlier Form 6 declarations utilized in other states, marking a significant change in the voter registration process.
The ECI had previously issued a press release claiming that this new declaration, annexed to the online Form 6 for the SIR process, had received approval from the Supreme Court in a May judgment related to the Bihar SIR. However, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana disputed this claim.
"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 it," CJI Surya Kant remarked during the proceedings.
The bench pointed out that the Supreme Court had no occasion to examine the newly introduced Form 6 declaration because it was implemented after the court's earlier judgment, making the ECI's claim of approval inaccurate.
Legal Challenge and Court's Response
The changes to Form 6 sparked considerable controversy, particularly after reports emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the modifications. These objections stemmed from the belief that such alterations could not be executed without the Central Government formally amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The petition filed by Advocate Tripathi specifically requested:
- The constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, supported by cybersecurity and and IT experts.
- Directions to register complaints and initiate prosecution against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials for alleged breach of official duty under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
While CJI Surya Kant noted during the hearing that the prayers in the petition appeared to be "jumbled up," Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the petitioner, affirmed the requests made in the plea. The Supreme Court has since issued notice on the petition and tagged it with a similar pending matter challenging other decisions of the Election Commission of India.