New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the basis on which changes were made to Form 6, the statutory document used for fresh voter registration, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant making it clear that the court had not approved any modified version of the form.
“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,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed while hearing petitions challenging decisions allegedly taken by the Election Commission without the approval of its two Election Commissioners, including pleas seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The CJI’s remarks assume significance amid controversy over the Election Commission’s decision to attach an additional declaration to Form 6 in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The issue came into sharp focus following a report that the two Election Commissioners had raised objections to the modifications. They reportedly contended that Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and therefore could not be altered merely through an instruction issued by the Election Commission. According to the objections, any substantive change would require the Central Government to first amend the relevant rules.
The additional declaration requires new applicants to provide details establishing a link between themselves, their parents or grandparents and electoral rolls prepared during an earlier intensive revision.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that the declaration was specifically linked to the SIR exercise. On September 26, the poll panel said the declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment relating to the Bihar SIR.
The Commission subsequently modified its approach after a meeting of the full poll panel comprising CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Following the meeting, the EC clarified that the additional declaration would be used only during the SIR period. In states and Union Territories where the revision exercise has already been completed, the declaration was withdrawn from the ECINET app and portal as well as the respective Chief Electoral Officer websites.
Applicants in these states are now required to submit only the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The additional declaration, however, continues to be available in states and Union Territories where the SIR exercise is still underway.
The Election Commission had said after its September 26 meeting that the declaration attached to Form 6 was intended specifically for SIR and that, during the non-SIR period, forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used.
The Supreme Court’s latest observation brings the focus back to a crucial question: who authorised the modification of a statutory voter-registration form and under what legal provision? The CJI’s direction to examine the record could put the decision-making process within the poll panel under closer judicial scrutiny.
