SC seeks ECI reply on SIR decisions, says modified Form 6 not approved

Supreme Court declines interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks responses on alleged unilateral SIR decisions and says it did not approve any modified Form 6

The Supreme Court on Mond­ay issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre in response to pleas alleging unilateral decision taken by the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) , without the consent of the two election commissions (ECs) adding that it will annul any decision not taken in accordance with the law.

 The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also clarified that no version of change to Form 6 was approved by it, and declined to issue an interim order suspending CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

 “We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the court,” the Bench stated. While agreeing to hear the plea, the top court sought responses from the EC and other respondents.

 

 The Bench also issued notices to the Centre, the Election Commission of India (ECI), CEC Kumar, ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy EC Maneesh Garg and ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna.

 The Court was hearing two petitions alleging that 14 decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the ECI, despite objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.

 Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought Kumar’s immediate suspension, arguing that interim protection was necessary given the implications of the alleged unilateral decision-making for the electoral process.

 Singh relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, which provides that decisions of the ECI should, as far as possible, be unanimous and, where there is no unanimity, be taken by majority.  

 The Bench questioned the practical consequences of suspending the CEC, asking, “Who will conduct the elections?” Singh replied that the other two ECs could discharge the ECI’s functions. Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Court could grant such relief without first hearing the respondents. He said if the records ultimately showed that particular decisions had not been taken in accordance with the law, the Court could restrain their operation, but it could not presume at the interim stage that all the decisions were unilateral.

 CJI Kant said the Court would examine the records and intervene if there was a violation of the statutory framework. He added the Court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.

 During the hearing, the CJI made a separate clarification concerning Form 6, used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls. He said the SC had not approved any modified version of the form used during the SIR. “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified (it),” CJI Kant said. The clarification assumes significance as the ECI had recently claimed that a new declaration added to the online Form 6 for the ongoing SIR in some states had been approved by the SC. The ECI had referred to the Court’s May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR in support of its position.

 The revised declaration requires applicants seeking registration as new voters to state whether they or their parents were included in the electoral rolls in the previous SIR. The change had reportedly fac­ed objections from the two EC, who maintained that it could not be introduced without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.