Not A Comma Changed: EC Sources Defend Form 6 After CJI Says No Approval Given

New Delhi: The Election Commission (EC) has not altered a single comma or full stop in the original Form 6 and has only appended an additional declaration page during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The sources inside the poll body asserted on Monday amidst ongoing controversy on the SIR in the country. The clarification was made within hours of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant remarking in open court that the apex court had not cleared any revised version of the voter enrolment form.

According to the sources, the protocol governing the exercise was drawn up during last year's SIR in Bihar and was later contested before the Supreme Court. They said that after hearing the matter the court had noted that such protocol fell within the constitutional powers conferred upon the Election Commission. They further added that the additional declaration formed part of that very protocol.

However, the judicial observation has raised massive legal questions over the manner in which Form 6 was tweaked and whether due process was followed.

Declaration That Triggered The row

The controversy revolved around an extra page attached to Form 6, the form used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls. The page requires an applicant to declare whether he or his parents were covered under the previous SIR. The Election Commission sources insisted that this is not a modification of Form 6 itself but a supplementary declaration linked to the SIR framework.

Meanwhile, the legal experts stressed that the even before introducing such a declaration, the mandatory consultation between the government and the Commission ought to have been completed. They said that any alteration or addition would also need to be notified in the Gazette and laid before Parliament to acquire statutory sanctity.

Opposition Offensive And Poll Body Pushback

The latest assertion from within the Commission followed a pointed observation by Chief Justice Surya Kant, who said during a hearing on a plea seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, "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."

Seizing on the remark, Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of changing Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally”, pointing to a press statement issued by the poll body last month which had stated that the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached to Form 6.

In a fact check posted on the official X handle, the Commission termed Gandhi's charge "misleading" and stated, "The order for SIR in Bihar, issued on 24 June 2025, was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. This order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026."

PIL Cites Internal Dissent And Seeks To Void Decisions

The Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed. The report claimed that 2 of the 3 Election Commissioners had objected to decisions linked to the SIR, including the change in Form 6 relating to an applicant's ancestry and linkage to the previous revision.

The petition contended that the requirement to furnish ancestral details and prior SIR linkage was introduced through software modifications without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules. It alleged that the two other Election Commissioners had objected on the ground that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the procedure prescribed by law.

The plea has asked the court to "issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio."

The court has now called for the original records to establish who authorised the additional declaration and whether the Commission acted collectively.