The Supreme Court on Monday said it had neither approved nor disapproved the modifications to Form 6 and the issue was not adjudicated upon while hearing a matter concerning the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral rolls. The new modification needed an applicant to declare whether his or her parents or grandparents figured on the previous SIR’s rolls.
Monday’s observation was made by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, which was hearing a petition concerning the SIR.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Election Commission had said the modified Form 6 had been approved by the apex court.
He said the apex court had on October 5 observed that it had not approved any modifications to Form 6, which is being used by the Election Commission during the SIR of electoral rolls in various states.
“There is no adjudication on the new Form 6. That is all we have said,” Justice Bagchi observed, adding that when the matter relating to the SIR in Bihar was heard, the issue of the modified Form 6 was not there.
“What the Chief Justice said was that when the Bihar SIR matter was heard by us, the new Form 6 was not there,” Justice Bagchi said, adding that this does not mean it was either approved or disapproved by the top court.
The bench said the plea would be heard along with similar pending petitions relating to the SIR that are slated to come up on October 27.
Referring to the commission’s claim that the change to Form 6 had the top court’s approval, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had said on October 6 that it would examine the records to see who had carried out the modifications.
“We are making it clear that any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear,” the bench, which included Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana, had told senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, an advocate.
“When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” the bench said.
An Indian Express report last month said that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had opposed the changes on the ground that the Union government alone was empowered to make them. The implication was that chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had made the modifications unilaterally.
After the Express report suggested a rift within the poll panel, the commission had on September 26 issued a media release, trying to paint an all-is-well picture.
It said: “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.”
The EC’s statement implied that the new requirement on Form 6 had the top court’s approval to be applied to states undergoing the SIR.
The plea that was heard by the apex court on October 5 had cited the provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023,
particularly Section 18, which provides for decision-making by the EC and says that where there is a difference of opinion, the view of the majority prevails.
One of the main issues the plea raised was the alteration of Form 6.
It alleged that the requirement relating to ancestral details and link with the previous SIR was introduced through the election panel’s software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules.