Hearing a petition challenging 14 decisions of the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court said the modified Form 6 had not been approved by it, and that it would like to see who modified it once the record is produced.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that the modified Form 6 used in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had not been approved by it, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing, “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear”, while issuing notice on a petition against decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India].
A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter, which was filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and has been tagged with the related matter challenging the decisions of the Election Commission. The allegations are the petitioner’s contentions and are untested.
The remark on Form 6
The petition concerns a modified Form 6 declaration which, according to the petitioner, requires new voter applicants to state whether they or their parents appeared in previous SIR records, a requirement absent in earlier versions. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, drew the Court’s attention to the manner in which SIR was conducted in Delhi, submitting that two new conditions had been added, that she herself had received a notice under them, and that, with another election cycle approaching, the CEC’s functioning was biased. The CJI responded:
“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.”
The CJI also remarked that the prayers in the petition appeared to be “jumbled up”.
The petition and its prayers
The petition challenges 14 decisions that, it alleges, were taken unilaterally during SIR. It names as respondents CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and other officials. It seeks the quashing of the 14 decisions, the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, and directions to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Modified Form 6: The Court’s Response
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing in the connected matter, sought an interim order to suspend the CEC or divest him of the authority to act as CEC, or at least a direction that the Commission take only unanimous decisions until the matter is heard again. The CJI said the Court needed authenticated information and could not pass an order on the basis of a newspaper report, adding that it expected the respondents to follow the law. Justice Bagchi observed that, after notice, the respondents would have to explain any decision that was neither by majority nor by unanimity. The CJI directed, “Issue notice.”
The Election Commission has publicly stated in a press note that its SIR and Form 6 decisions were unanimous. Its response before the Court is yet to be placed on record, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the allegations.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy