{
  "type": "article",
  "title": "Supreme Court Flags Unauthorised Changes to Voter Registration Form 6, CJI Surya Kant Demands EC Accountability",
  "summary": "The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of unapproved modifications made to voter registration Form 6 on the election portal, with CJI Surya Kant asserting that the bench will examine who ordered the altered criteria.",
  "content": "The Supreme Court has taken a strong stance regarding unauthorised modifications introduced to Form 6, the statutory application used by first-time voters to register on the electoral roll. Heading a three-judge bench, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stated unequivocally that the apex court has granted no approval for any alteration to Form 6. The Chief Justice underscored that once the Election Commission submits its formal report, the court will specifically examine who was responsible for executing these contentious modifications.\n\nHearing on Petitions Challenging Chief Election Commissioner Powers\nThese observations came on Monday during the hearing of petitions challenging the powers exercised by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The matter was brought before the top court through a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the poll panel altered Form 6 on its online portal without obtaining the requisite statutory approvals, creating significant hurdles for citizens applying to be enrolled as voters.\n\nMandatory Parental Details and Special Intensive Revision Conditions\nArguing the practical consequences of the alteration, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy pointed out that during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise conducted in Delhi, two unprecedented conditions were inserted into Form 6. She highlighted that notices were subsequently issued to prospective voters solely on the basis of these newly incorporated requirements. According to the petitioners, the fresh section inserted into the form asked applicants to provide specific background regarding their parents, explicitly demanding disclosure on whether their parents were registered voters during the preceding Special Intensive Revision. The counsel noted that she had personally received such a notice, adding that new voters are now being denied entry onto the electoral roll under the pretext of these revised requirements.\n\nModifications Without Amending Registration of Electors Rules 1960\nThe core legal dispute stems from the fact that Form 6, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, was never formally or officially amended. The petitioners questioned how an online portal could display a substantially altered version of a statutory form in the total absence of a gazetted amendment to the underlying rules. The petition alleges that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, acting in concert with the Director General IT, introduced these unilateral changes to Form 6 on the ECINET portal in July 2026 without following lawful procedure.\n\nInternal Dissent Within the Commission and Calls for Criminal Liability\nThe petition further claimed that the modification triggered internal dissent within the Election Commission itself. According to the filings, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had deemed the change unauthorised and unlawful, formally urging that the directive be rescinded immediately. Despite this internal objection, the modified form continued to remain accessible on the ECINET portal. The plea contends that altering a statutory document meant for young first-time voters without amending the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 constitutes an illegal act, urging the court to establish individual criminal liability against the officials responsible.\n\nBench Resolves to Identify Those Behind the Shift\nResponding to senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy's submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant reiterated that no changes to Form 6 carried judicial sanction from the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice noted that the bench will review the detailed report sought from the Election Commission to ascertain whether the decision was taken by consensus or implemented arbitrarily. The bench affirmed that if the alterations were carried out through unlawful means, the court will closely scrutinise who was behind the move.\n\nWhat this means for you\nThis judicial scrutiny safeguards prospective voters from arbitrary verification hurdles and ensures statutory procedures are strictly adhered to during registration.\n\n• Across India: First-time voter applicants turning 18 will not be arbitrarily subjected to extra-statutory verification burdens while enrolling on the voter list. Citizens can expect registration processes on national portals to adhere strictly to gazetted statutory guidelines rather than unapproved digital edits.\n• In Delhi: Residents who received notices regarding parental inclusion during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) may see relief from unwarranted bureaucratic hurdles. Pending voter applications stalled purely on the basis of these unapproved queries could be processed without extraneous conditions.\n• For New Applicants: Young citizens filling out Form 6 need only comply with the legally designated criteria under the Registration of Electors Rules 1960. Citizens face reduced risks of administrative rejections based on undocumented online questionnaire changes.\n• Administrative Accountability: The scrutiny enforces legal compliance across digital governance platforms managed by the Election Commission. Officials will be held accountable against modifying public forms without official gazette notifications.\n\nWhy this happened\nThe controversy emerged when supplementary parental verification criteria were introduced into the online voter registration form without amending the statutory rules.\n\n• Unauthorised Portal Edits: The petition states that changes were made to Form 6 on the ECINET portal in July 2026 by the Chief Election Commissioner alongside the Director General IT. These digital alterations occurred without officially amending the statutory Registration of Electors Rules 1960.\n• Demands for Parental Revision History: Applicants registering during Delhi's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were abruptly required to declare whether their parents featured on previous revision lists. This led to notices being issued to first-time voters and created roadblocks in finalising enrollments.\n• Internal Resistance Ignored: Filings reveal that Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had opposed the move as unauthorised and urged its rollback. Despite the internal dissent, the modified form was left operational on the commission's public portal.\n• Judicial Review of Decision Making: The Supreme Court is reviewing the Election Commission's submission to establish whether the decision had collegiate consensus or constituted an unlawful administrative exercise.\n\nQuestions & Answers\n\n1. What did the Supreme Court observe regarding changes to Form 6?\nCJI Surya Kant stated that the Supreme Court never approved changes to Form 6 and affirmed the bench will examine who made the alteration once the commission reports back.\n\n2. What specific conditions were newly added to Form 6?\nThe form introduced requirements demanding details about applicants' parents, particularly whether they were enrolled during the previous Special Intensive Revision (SIR).\n\n3. What is the primary legal contention raised against the change?\nThe objection is that the changes were uploaded on the online portal without any formal amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules 1960.\n\n4. Who has been named in the petition regarding the unauthorised alteration?\nThe petition alleges that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, together with the Director General IT, altered the form on the ECINET portal in July 2026.\n\n5. Was there internal dissent within the Election Commission over this move?\nAccording to the plea, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu deemed the change unauthorised and requested the directive to be withdrawn.",
  "url": "https://trendkia.com/en/national/nae-votaron-ke-form-6-men-anadhikrita-badalava-para-supreme-court-sakhta-cji-surya-kant-ne-election-commission-se-manga-javaba-43305",
  "category": "India",
  "publishedAt": "2026-10-05",
  "tags": [
    "Supreme Court",
    "Surya Kant",
    "Election Commission",
    "Gyanesh Kumar",
    "Form 6",
    "Voter Registration",
    "Menaka Guruswamy"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "site": "TrendKia"
}