The Supreme Court said on October 5 that it had not approved any modified Form 6 used to enrol voters during the Special Intensive Revision, and asked the Election Commission to produce records showing who made the changes.
The dispute is narrow, and that is why it matters. It concerns one declaration on the online form, which asks applicants whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR.
The Election Commission had said the Supreme Court approved it, and Daily Pioneer reported that the statement of September 26 pointed to the court’s May 2026 judgment on Bihar’s revision.
The Chief Justice’s reply was direct: the court has not approved any modified form, and it wants to see the record to find out who did.
The reports did not include a response from the commission, so the answer will come from the records the court has asked for.
The disputed change is a new declaration attached to the online Form 6.
It asks applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR.
Open magazine reported that the declaration is absent from the forms used in other states.
The Election Commission had said that the Supreme Court approved the new declaration, and Daily Pioneer reported that the commission’s statement came on September 26.
According to Daily Pioneer, the Commission linked the approval to the court’s May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar.
The plea was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and argued by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, according to Open magazine.
The plea seeks action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials over the changes, according to the same report.
The reports available on October 5 and 6 did not include a response from the Election Commission to the Chief Justice’s remarks.
Supreme Court of India (file image), Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0