The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6, the application used for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll, while hearing a challenge concerning changes allegedly introduced to the form during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
“
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let us also be clear that when the report is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said during the hearing.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Jomalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a broader challenge concerning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India and a challenge concerning alleged modifications to Form 6, the application used for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The controversy relates to the use of an additional declaration along with Form 6 during SIR. Form 6 is ordinarily used by an individual seeking inclusion of their name in the electoral roll as a new elector. During the SIR exercise, an additional declaration was introduced requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves or their family members to earlier electoral rolls.
The issue has generated a dispute over whether the Election Commission could introduce such additional requirements through the Form 6 process or whether any modification to the prescribed form required a formal amendment to the statutory rules.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, raised a challenge to the functioning of the Election Commission, including the manner in which the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was being conducted and the alleged changes made to Form 6.
Guruswamy submitted that the challenge involved alleged violations of the Representation of the People Act as well as the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Referring to the SIR exercise in Delhi, she alleged that two additional conditions had been introduced in Form 6, despite the form being prescribed under the statutory scheme.
“
“My lord, let me give you an illustration, since it pertains to most recently, for instance, Delhi. Let us see how the SIR was conducted in Delhi. Form 6 has two new conditions added. Those Form 6s were circulated. I got a notice also based on this new Form 6 which cannot under the schedule be modified. Let’s be very clear. Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us.”
Guruswamy further submitted that the prescribed Form 6 under the Representation of the People Act could not be altered in this manner. The CJI, however, clarified that the court has not approved any modification and indicated that when the relevant report and records were produced, it would also examine who had modified the form.
“
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let us also be clear that when the report is produced, we would like to see who has modified it.”
She then referred to the number of appeals pending before the appellate tribunal and submitted that persons whose names had been excluded from one election cycle could face exclusion in another. She sought to place the challenge in the context of the broader functioning of the Election Commission, arguing that the Delhi-specific example was only being cited to illustrate a national issue.
She submitted that the issue concerned the institution of the CEC and argued that the alleged illegality was being shielded by the statutory protection under the 2023 Act. Questioning the scope of such protection, she asked, “What is the punishment? What is the sanction for this kind of biased conduct? Is this discharge of official duty? I ask myself.” She submitted that the issue was of national importance, stating, “We have grown up with free and fair elections in this country. They do not exist today. I stand by these prayers and each and every one of them. It is a national problem.”
The Bench also questioned the nature of the prayers sought in the petition. Guruswamy, however, submitted that she stood by each of the prayers. The Bench indicated that it would examine the issues and directed that the matter be tagged with the earlier connected petition concerning the functioning of the CEC and the interpretation/compliance of the statutory provisions governing the Commission.