Supreme Court Questions Form 6 Requirement as Election Commission Defends SIR

The dispute concerns how the Election Commission of India made decisions about the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. Petitioners alleged that decisions, including changes to Form 6 used for voter enrolment, were taken without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, according to India News.

The commission disputes both parts of that account. Its defence is that the relevant orders were unanimously approved and that Form 6 itself was not amended. The proceedings also concern pleas against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a request to protect the records behind the revision.

On October 26, the commission's counter-affidavit set out its account of the decision-making. It said SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, had unanimous approval, according to Mint. Legal News India reported that the commission said members' approval was obtained electronically in urgent matters.

The commission also distinguished the voter registration form from an accompanying declaration. India Today reported that it said Form 6 remained unchanged and the online SIR form and declaration had been separated from October 21. According to NDTV Top Stories, the affidavit said only the central government could change the format of Form 6.

Its defence extended to the challenge against Kumar. A common affidavit for the commission, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi argued that restraining the Chief Election Commissioner's functioning would run contrary to the 2023 Act, The Hindu reported. It also said the Chief Election Commissioner could be removed only through a process like that for a Supreme Court judge.

On October 27, the Supreme Court gave petitioners ten days to reply to the affidavit and scheduled the next hearing for November 17, according to Times now. Separately, The Hindu reported that the court said it would examine the petitioners' request to preserve complete SIR records or have them filed in court. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi is among those seeking preservation.

On October 28, the focus turned to previously registered voters during the Delhi SIR hearing. The court asked why people whose names had appeared on earlier rolls but were missing from the revised draft were being required to submit Form 6, Legal News India reported. NDTV Top Stories also reported the court's statement that the commission could not modify Forms 6, 7 and 8.

The commission's account remains contested. On October 27, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for TMC MP Dola Sen, challenged its handling of Form 6. According to Legal News India, she told the court that a commission press release had claimed judicial authorisation for an amended form, which she said the court had not given.

The latest reported questions concern why voters already enrolled must use Form 6 to regain inclusion. They do not resolve the competing claims about whether the form was changed. The request to preserve the underlying SIR records also remains pending examination, according to The Hindu.

The next scheduled hearing on the pleas against the commission and Kumar is November 17, according to Times now. Petitioners' replies will set out their response to the unanimity claim and the commission's explanation of Form 6.

A separate point to watch is whether the court orders preservation or production of complete SIR records. Its Delhi hearing also leaves open how previously enrolled voters excluded from the draft roll should seek inclusion, following the questions reported by Legal News India.