New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has neither approved nor disapproved the new Form 6, emphasizing that the issue was not formally adjudicated when it previously heard matters related to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Form 6 serves as the standard application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made these observations while presiding over a petition concerning the special revision process. The court directed that the current plea be tagged alongside similar pending petitions regarding the electoral roll revision, with all related matters scheduled for a joint hearing on October 27.
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that the Election Commission had previously claimed the new form was endorsed by the apex court. This reference followed a previous observation made on October 5, where the court noted it had not sanctioned any alterations to Form 6, which the election panel has deployed during revisions across multiple states.
Clarifying the court's stance, Justice Bagchi stated that there had been no formal adjudication on the modified form. The judge explained that when the Bihar revision case was originally heard, the specific question of the new Form 6 was not before the bench, meaning its absence from that specific ruling did not translate to judicial approval or rejection.
The controversy arose after the Election Commission issued a press release on September 26, implying that the Supreme Court had upheld the Form 6 declaration within its May judgment concerning the Bihar revision. The separate petition addressed on October 5 invoked provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, specifically highlighting rules governing decision-making and majority opinions.
Central to the ongoing legal dispute is the modification of Form 6, through which individuals register as voters. Petitioners have contended that new requirements involving ancestral details and connections to previous revisions were introduced via election software without undergoing the mandatory statutory amendments outlined in electoral rules.
With this clarification, the Supreme Court has underscored that the question of whether the updated Form 6 stands approved or disapproved remains entirely open. The broader challenges concerning the validity of the form and the wider revision process will now be thoroughly examined alongside related petitions when the court reconvenes later this month.