New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response of the Election Commission on a fresh plea by TMC’s Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen alleging that changes were made to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar without the top court’s approval.
The apex court also granted 10 days to petitioners to file a reply to the Election Commission’s affidavit defending the SIR of electoral rolls and maintaining that the exercise was authorised by law and the relevant orders were approved unanimously by all three members of the poll body.
While hearing a batch of petitions, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of submissions of senior advocate and MP Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, that the EC wrongly claimed that the changes in Form 6 were approved by the top court.
In her petition, Sen, who is from the Mamata Banerjee faction, raised concerns over alleged changes to the online version of Form 6 and the Election Commission’s subsequent press note suggesting that the Supreme Court had authorised or upheld the changes during the Bihar SIR proceedings.
Guruswamy argued that the EC had gone beyond the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Bihar SIR case.
The court had not authorised the alleged changes to Form 6, she said, adding that the issue warranted consideration alongside the other pending petitions concerning the challenge to the SIR process.
While issuing the notice on Sen’s plea, the CJI said that all the issues would be examined and asked senior advocate Vikas Singh, who represented the first petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, to file a rejoinder in 10 days to the poll authority’s reply affidavit filed late Monday evening.
The EC, in its 248-page response to the petition against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the decisions taken by it, strongly defended the SIR. Rejecting the allegations that Form 6 had been amended, the poll body said that no changes were made to the statutory Form 6 used for voter registration.
“The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate,” said the affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the EC.
The EC said the affidavit itself had been approved for filing by a unanimous decision of all three members of the poll body. It said the SIR orders of June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were issued on unanimous decisions taken in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Section 18 requires the Commission’s business to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, and by majority where members differ.
The affidavit said the three SIR orders were issued in accordance with decisions of the EC arrived at unanimously and taken in due compliance of Article 324 of the Constitution of India read with Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The poll body said any suggestion, observation or query raised by a commissioner while a file is being processed “does not constitute a decision” of the Commission.
It explained that files move first to one election commissioner, then to the other and finally to the CEC, and that approved decisions bear the signatures of all three. Where urgent orders are needed and members are not available in person, approval is taken by electronic means and recorded on the file later, it said.
On the Form 6 row, the EC said it “unequivocally rejects the misleading contention” that the statutory form had been changed.
Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral rolls, it said.
According to the affidavit, the declaration attached during the SIR is a separate document provided by the SIR orders and “is not a part of Form 6”.
It said the declaration used in the Bihar SIR was later replaced in the subsequent orders so that applicants could give details of themselves, their parents or grandparents from the 2002-03 rolls and avoid submitting further documents once successfully mapped.
The Commission, however, admitted that the way the declaration was displayed on its online platform “could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made”.
It said the declaration had been merged into the online Form 6 page so that applicants would need only one OTP and one e-sign instead of two.
After deliberation, the Electoral Rolls Division decided on October 21 that online applications will now also be in two parts, as is the case with physical forms.
The pleas were filed after The Indian Express reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The claim has sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding removal of CEC Kumar.
