Top Court Distances Itself From Voter Form 6 Revision, Seeks Response From Poll Body And Government The Supreme Court clarified that it did not direct the controversial alterations to voter registration Form 6, while issuing notices to the Election Commission and the Centre over petitions questioning the Chief Election Commissioner's decision-making process. The Supreme Court has firmly distanced itself from the contentious revisions introduced to Form 6, the statutory document used for enrolling new voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across various states. While hearing arguments concerning administrative overreach and internal governance within the polling authority, the apex court clarified that it had never authorized any modifications to the registration format. Concurrently, the bench issued formal notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Union Government, demanding their replies to multiple petitions challenging the unilateral functioning, administrative changes, and sweeping statutory protections granted to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Judicial Clarification on Statutory Form 6 Modifications Heading a three-judge bench, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed the widespread controversy surrounding voter registration procedures, explicitly putting on record that the judiciary had no role in altering Form 6. The Chief Justice stated plainly that any modifications made to Form 6 were not carried out under the court's directions. Under the existing legal framework, Form 6 is a statutory template mandated within the Schedule of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Any formal adjustment to statutory electoral rules requires a sanctioned legislative mechanism and cannot be altered unilaterally through internal executive discretion. The judicial clarification triggered an immediate political reaction from opposition leaders. The Congress party, posting on social media platform X, highlighted that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had previously circulated an official media release on September 26 claiming that changes to Form 6 were implemented in strict accordance with instructions from the Supreme Court. Highlighting the remarks made by the Chief Justice, the party argued that the apex court had directly contradicted the commission's assertion by stating it had not approved any revised Form 6. Opposition leaders alleged that the electoral authority was attempting to misinform the public after being caught altering voter rolls and deleting genuine voters nationwide. Courtroom Exchange Over Immunity and Commissioner Powers During the courtroom proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant initially observed that the allegations leveled against the election body were derived from media reporting. Appearing on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh countered that the commission itself had published an official press note without refuting the substance of those news reports. Singh argued that the enactment of the 2023 legislation had drastically widened the umbrella of legal immunity shielding the CEC, asserting that institutional credibility had deteriorated to a degree where ordinary voters felt deep apprehension. He contended that while internal procedural frameworks should ideally maintain unanimity, substantive decisions could still be determined through majority voting. Justice J. Joymalya Bagchi noted during the hearing that Section 16 of the 2023 Act affords the CEC an extraordinary shield against legal action that extends even beyond retirement, protection not even available to sitting judges. In response, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pressed for the immediate suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar from his constitutional role, suggesting that the other two Election Commissioners step in to manage administrative operations. Urging urgent interim intervention, Singh cautioned that public anger could destabilize the nation if safeguards were not established immediately. He petitioned the bench to direct that the commission take all administrative actions strictly by consensus until the underlying challenge is resolved, thereby preventing any solitary decision-making by the CEC. Justice Bagchi questioned whether the judiciary could put the cart before the horse and presume that all contested orders had been executed unilaterally without examining the institutional record. The bench emphasized that judicial filings must respect the functioning of constitutional bodies. Ultimately, while the Supreme Court issued formal notices to both the election body and the central administration, it declined to grant the interim relief sought by the petitioner. When the bench referred to its inherent jurisdiction to recall orders, Singh questioned whether the court would possess the practical capacity to recall completed elections. Petitions Seek High-Level Probe Into Voter List Purges The bench simultaneously took up a second petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which seeks the establishment of an independent, high-level Judicial Inquiry Commission or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate allegations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The petition requests a comprehensive, end-to-end technical audit of the Election Commission's central databases, along with an inquiry into the administrative circumstances that resulted in the deletion of 13 crore names across 30 States and Union Territories under the Special Intensive Revision initiative. Appearing for Tripathi, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the actions attributed to the poll chief must at minimum be termed biased. She emphasized that massive voter disenfranchisement had taken place within the world's largest democracy, noting that citizens raised under the promise of free and fair elections were now witnessing an erosion of that standard. Guruswamy reaffirmed every prayer contained in the petition, including the plea that Kumar should be stripped of statutory and constitutional immunities in light of the allegations and held accountable under regular criminal law as an ordinary accused, subject to standard police inquiry, evidentiary collection, and formal trial. The Chief Justice directed that Tripathi's petition be tagged with the earlier matter. Adding to the allegations of procedural irregularities, senior Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan claimed that Kumar had acted completely outside the law by violating statutory enactments governing the shared powers of election commissioners. Chavan asserted that Kumar had adopted biased policies to tilt electoral outcomes. He revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded formal written objections on at least 14 separate occasions over the past 10 months, explicitly noting that major directives and decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision had been issued without their consultation, awareness, or endorsement. Opposition Formulates Core Demands Amid Protests Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge outlined three non-negotiable demands on Monday, demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the total annulment of the Special Intensive Revision process, and the restoration of physical paper ballots instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Kharge stated that party cadres alongside INDIA alliance partners were mobilizing across the nation over these three core grievances. He affirmed the party's solidarity with youth groups and civil society organizations protesting across different parts of the country, while strongly condemning the reported harassment of female journalists by Delhi Police personnel. Congress General Secretary in-charge Communications Jairam Ramesh demanded Kumar's immediate resignation, stating that his compliance in executing improper directives had turned him into an institutional liability for the country. Ramesh referenced remarks delivered by Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who had observed that any administrative process which disenfranchises millions of citizens remains intrinsically arbitrary and constitutes a negation of the constitutional framework that cannot be justified through political deflection. The Congress also maintained that the poll chief had compromised constitutional principles under political influence from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, asserting that the Supreme Court now held a historic opening to restore public faith in the electoral system. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut leveled harsh criticism against Kumar, labeling him an adversary of the nation and alleging that the CEC had gone underground following widespread public demonstrations demanding his removal. Raut demanded that the election authority grant an audience to opposition parliamentarians representing regions where local candidates experienced institutional unfairness. He announced that opposition MPs would carry out a unified march to the Election Commission headquarters in New Delhi on Tuesday. Concurrently, Delhi Congress announced that local constituents of the INDIA bloc would stage a protest outside the office of Delhi Chief Electoral Officer Ashok Kumar at Kashmere Gate on October 7. Student Demonstrations and Legal Scrutiny Over Public Assemblies Student activists under the banner of the National Students' Union of India (NSUI) staged a symbolic demonstration on Raisina Road outside their national headquarters. Led by NSUI national president Vinod Jakhar, demonstrators lay across the street covered in white sheets to symbolize casualties of democratic backsliding, chanting slogans against alleged voter fraud and demanding Kumar's resignation and arrest. Jakhar stated that the action aimed to highlight the degradation of democratic trust. Elsewhere, All India Students' Association (AISA) National President Neha Bora addressed a gathering at Jadavpur University, raising concerns regarding voter rights in West Bengal and across India. Restrictions on public gatherings in the capital have also prompted judicial intervention. The Supreme Court indicated on Monday that it would list a petition challenging Delhi Police actions that prevented peaceful marches from reaching Jantar Mantar. The plea seeks court intervention to protect the right of citizens to hold peaceful demonstrations demanding accountability from the electoral leadership. Over the weekend, public protests reached their third day across Delhi and Mumbai, resulting in approximately 500 preventive detentions in the national capital while the Thackeray leadership led demonstrations in Mumbai demanding the removal of the CEC and the scrapping of the revision drive. Detention of Reporters and Government Justification for Rolls Revision Tensions in the capital intensified following allegations of mistreatment involving media professionals. A female journalist who had accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of physical harassment and misconduct while reporting on an earlier demonstration was detained once again on Monday morning and transported to the Delhi Cantonment police station. Activists and independent reporters gathered outside the Parliament Street police station for a second consecutive night seeking an official criminal complaint against the officer, prompting further police detentions. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) legal head Ratna Singh stated that female detainees recounted instances of police assault, alleging that two individuals were subjected to severe physical beatings in custody. Amid intensifying demonstrations, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath issued a public defense of the Special Intensive Revision drive. Writing on social media platform X on Monday, Adityanath asserted that identifying and eliminating illegitimate entries from voter rolls is vital for protecting national unity, security, and integrity. While noting that India has upheld democratic norms for centuries, the Chief Minister maintained that the verification process reinforced democratic institutions by purging records of deceased citizens, duplicate entries, and individuals who had permanently migrated. He urged all citizens who have reached 18 years of age to proactively register their names on the updated electoral rolls. What this means for you The Supreme Court's intervention regarding voter registration forms and the election body's procedures directly influences voting accessibility and voter roll integrity for citizens. • For New Applicants: Young citizens submitting Form 6 for voter enrollment will see enhanced scrutiny over required documentation and procedural legitimacy. Applicants should verify the status of their registration on official electoral portals to ensure their entries remain active. • For Existing Voters: Given the review of voter rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, registered electors must verify that their names remain intact on the rolls. Anyone improperly purged must promptly access standard statutory mechanisms to seek restoration before upcoming polls. • For Civic Demonstrators: The impending judicial consideration of march restrictions toward Jantar Mantar will establish guidelines for assembly rights in New Delhi. This determination will shape how student groups and public organizations can lawfully organize peaceful demonstrations. • For Electoral Transparency: Demands for unanimous commission decision-making and database audits aim to impact public trust in democratic administration. Greater institutional accountability ensures that administrative revisions cannot disenfranchise legitimate voters without due process. Questions & Answers 1. What clarification did the Supreme Court provide regarding Form 6? A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the court did not authorize or direct any modifications to voter registration Form 6. 2. To whom has the Supreme Court issued notices? The apex court issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Union Government seeking their responses to petitions challenging the poll body's governance. 3. What core demands were announced by the Congress party? Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the scrapping of the Special Intensive Revision drive, and returning to paper ballots. 4. What inquiry was requested in the petition by Shailendra Mani Tripathi? The plea sought an SIT or judicial inquiry led by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit database operations and examine the deletion of 13 crore voter names across 30 states and union territories. 5. What concerns were raised regarding Section 16 of the 2023 Act? Justice J. Joymalya Bagchi noted that Section 16 protects the CEC from legal action even post-tenure, a degree of immunity not extended even to sitting judges. 6. What position did Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath take on the revision drive? Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defended the Special Intensive Revision, stating that identifying and purging ineligible entries is vital for national security and democratic integrity. https://trendkia.com/en/national/top-court-distances-itself-from-voter-form-6-revision-seeks-response-from-poll-body-and-government-44348 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.