Supreme Court questions Form 6 changes as Election Commission faces backlash

The dispute centres on Form 6, the application normally used to register new voters. During the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, it was also used to re-enlist people deleted during the enumeration phase, according to The Hindu.

An additional declaration sought details about applicants' parents or grandparents. The commission subsequently restored the standard Form 6 for states outside SIR, removing that requirement, India News reported.

That reversal did not settle the wider dispute. The central questions are whether the additional requirements were lawfully introduced and how eligible voters removed during the revision can return to the rolls.

On September 29, The Hindu reported that the commission had reverted to allowing Form 6 submissions without the attached declaration in non-SIR states. The rollback concerned those states, rather than a blanket withdrawal of requirements across the entire revision exercise.

On September 30, the commission extended SIR deadlines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya. The meeting was attended by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, according to NDTV India.

By October 1, the commission had ordered a special drive in 20 states where SIR was complete, Indian Express reported. The drive aims to re-enrol eligible people omitted or deleted during the revision and register first-time and young voters, according to Business Line - Home.

The recovery effort has limits. On October 2, The Hindu reported that it would not cover West Bengal cases pending before appellate tribunals. An official said allowing those cases into the drive could create parallel routes through tribunals and Form 6 applications.

On October 5, the Supreme Court declined to suspend Gyanesh Kumar and sought responses on disputed poll body decisions, according to Mint. Chief Justice Surya Kant also verbally observed that the court had not approved changes to Form 6, Scroll.in reported.

Commission officials responded that Form 6 itself had not changed and that only a separate declaration had been added, according to Times of India Top Stories. On October 6, Indian Express reported that the Supreme Court had sent notice to the commission and said it could annul unilateral decisions.

The court has not suspended Gyanesh Kumar, and its statement that it did not approve Form 6 changes is not a final ruling on the legality of the additional declaration. The commission's account distinguishes between changing the form and attaching a declaration, while the petitions challenge alleged unilateral decisions, according to Mint and Times of India Top Stories.

The political pressure is continuing. Rahul Gandhi accused Gyanesh Kumar of illegally changing Form 6 after the court's clarification, India News reported. On October 6, Times of India India reported INDIA bloc demands to scrap SIR, restore deleted names and remove Gyanesh Kumar.

Meanwhile, the re-enrollment drive is moving towards implementation. In Keralam, Booth Level Officers will begin a special drive on October 15, comparing pre-SIR and post-SIR lists to identify people left out, according to The Hindu.

The commission's response to the Supreme Court notice should address the disputed decisions and the basis for the additional declaration. The court has said it can annul unilateral decisions, but the coverage does not establish that it has yet done so, according to Indian Express.

The practical test is whether eligible voters identified by the special drive are restored to the rolls. West Bengal cases pending before appellate tribunals remain outside that exercise, according to The Hindu, while Keralam's October 15 start provides a concrete next step to follow.