Supreme Court Examines Changes to Form 6 During Voter List Revision: How Voter Enrolment Rules and Election Commission Decisions Work
On 5 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard petitions about changes made to Form 6 (the application form a new voter fills to get their name on the voter list) during the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petitions say an extra SIR-linked declaration (asking about the applicant's parent or grandparent and a link to a previous SIR roll) was added to Form 6 through the Commission's online software, without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which is the law that sets out Form 6.
The petitions also say the two Election Commissioners recorded objections on at least 14 occasions to SIR-related decisions, and that some decisions were taken without the approval of the full three-member Commission. They rely on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which says the Commission should decide unanimously as far as possible and, if members differ, by majority.
The Court said it had not approved any modified Form 6, and that it wants to see from the records who made the change. It asked the Election Commission, the Union government, the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners to respond.
The Court refused to pass an immediate order suspending the Chief Election Commissioner. It said it would first examine the records and responses before deciding whether any decision went against the law.
Earlier, the Commission had removed the extra SIR declaration from Form 6 in states where the SIR is complete. Applicants there now fill only the regular Form 6 prescribed by the 1960 Rules.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
An electoral roll is the official list of voters for a constituency; only people on it can vote. Normally, the list is updated a little every year (a "summary revision"). A Special Intensive Revision is a much deeper exercise: booth-level officers go house to house and the voter list is prepared afresh, with every voter asked to confirm their details. The Election Commission orders it under its power over voter lists in Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The Form 6 dispute comes straight out of the SIR exercise. The petitions argue that an SIR-specific declaration was attached to the statutory Form 6 through software, so the form people actually filled was different from the one in the 1960 Rules.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): The Multi-Member Election Commission
For most of its early history, the Election Commission had only one member, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). In 1993, the government added two Election Commissioners and a rule that the Commission would decide by majority if members disagreed. CEC T.N. Seshan challenged this, saying it reduced him to one vote out of three. In 1995, a five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the change: the Commission is one body, and when its members differ, the majority view decides.
The petitions argue that if two Election Commissioners objected and the decisions still went ahead, the Commission did not act as the multi-member body that the 1995 judgment and Section 18 require. The Court said it will look at the records before deciding whether any decision was taken against this framework.
Delegated Legislation
Parliament cannot write every small detail of a law itself. So it passes the main Act and gives the government power to make rules, regulations and forms that fill in the details. This rule-making by a body other than the legislature is called delegated (or subordinate) legislation. Such rules have the force of law, but they must be made in the way the parent Act says; anything outside that power is ultra vires (beyond the power) and can be struck down by courts.
The petitions say the SIR-linked declaration was added to Form 6 without any amendment to the 1960 Rules. If the records show that, the Court may have to decide whether the change was ultra vires, that is, beyond the legal power used to make it.
- Hearing date: 5 October 2026; bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
- Form 6: application for inclusion in the electoral roll; prescribed by Rule 13, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
- Form 7: objection or deletion; Form 8: correction or shifting of residence
- Section 21(3), RPA 1950: Election Commission can order a special revision of electoral rolls
- Section 28, RPA 1950: Central Government makes rules after consulting the Election Commission
- Section 31, RPA 1950: false declaration punishable with up to 1 year imprisonment, fine, or both
- Section 18, CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023: unanimous decisions as far as possible; otherwise majority
- T.N. Seshan v. Union of India: 14 July 1995, five-judge bench, upheld multi-member Commission and majority rule
- Petitions cite at least 14 recorded objections by the two Election Commissioners
- Court declined to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner at this stage; sought responses from all respondents