The Supreme Court's latest observations on the Form 6 controversy have raised a larger legal question for the Election Commission of India (ECI): did it merely introduce an additional declaration for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), or did the digital system effectively make that declaration compulsory for new voters seeking to register?
The distinction could prove crucial in the ongoing legal proceedings.
The development comes as CEC Gyanesh Kumar faces increased scrutiny over how decisions related to the SIR were taken within the poll panel. An Indian Express report in September said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times in 10 months over decisions linked to the SIR. The issue has since featured in petitions before the Supreme Court, which have raised questions about whether decisions were taken by the multi-member Commission through the required process.
Form 6 is the statutory form used by new voters to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. The ECI has maintained that it did not modify Form 6 during the SIR exercise. The controversy, however, centres on an additional declaration linked to the form and how it was implemented on the ECI's ECINet platform.
What Did The Supreme Court Say?
On October 5, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge bench, made it clear that the Supreme Court had not approved a modified version of Form 6.
The court sought records from the ECI to establish who authorised the changes. It also indicated that if the decision was taken without the required unanimity or majority within the Commission, it could be annulled.
This puts the focus not only on what was changed, but also on who authorised it and how the change was implemented.
ECI's Defence: Form 6 Was Not Changed
The ECI's argument is that Form 6 itself remained untouched. According to the poll panel, the additional declaration was introduced specifically for the SIR exercise and formed part of a separate documentation framework.
The Commission can rely on the Supreme Court's May judgment on the Bihar SIR, which recognised that the ECI had some "residual authority" to formulate an appropriate documentation framework for an exercise such as SIR.
However, the court had also made it clear that this power was "not unbounded" and that any departure from the statutory framework had to have a "rational connection" with the objective of the SIR.
Why ECINet Has Become Important
The bigger problem for the ECI may not be the physical Form 6 at all. It could be the way the form and declaration were connected on ECINet, the Commission's digital platform.
The portal has displayed separate options for filling Form 6 and the SIR declaration. But if a new voter could not complete the Form 6 process without first submitting the additional declaration, the practical effect could be very different from simply asking for supplementary SIR information.
That could shift the central legal question from "Who changed Form 6?" to "Who made the additional declaration mandatory for Form 6 through the digital system?"
Is The Issue About Gyanesh Kumar Or The Entire ECI?
The proceedings could also raise questions about how the multi-member Election Commission took the decision.
The Supreme Court indicated that the Commission is expected to take decisions unanimously and, where there is no unanimity, by majority. If its records show that the required process was not followed, the court said the decision could be declared "ultra vires" or annulled.
That means it may be premature to view the controversy as a question concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar alone. If the records show that the full Commission approved the framework, the issue could instead become one concerning the institution as a whole.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has not held the ECI responsible for any violation. It has asked for the records.
The next stage could therefore hinge on whether the additional declaration was simply an SIR-specific document permitted under the May judgment, or whether its implementation on ECINet effectively made it a compulsory condition for new voters using Form 6.