Says it did not approve Form 6 modification; issues notices to Centre, EC
NEW DELHI, OCT 5 (PTI/AGENCIES): Supreme Court on Monday said it would examine decisions of the Election Commission (EC) and annul those found contrary to law, while issuing notices to the Centre and poll body on pleas alleging that the EC took decisions without the approval of the two election commissioners.
The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6, used for inclusion of eligible persons in electoral rolls, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
“We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it,” the bench said, adding that the immunity granted to the CEC is something even judges do not have. It said the immunity clause may also be examined.
The court refused to pass an interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, but issued notices to the ECI, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It also declined to restrain Kumar from taking decisions pending final disposal of the petition, saying it could not rely solely on newspaper reports and had to consider responses from the ECI and Centre.
The bench said the poll body is “expected to take unanimous decisions”. If records showed a decision was not taken unanimously or by the majority required under law, the court could declare it ultra vires and annul it.
Senior advocate Vikash Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought Kumar’s suspension and an interim direction restraining him from taking further decisions. He argued that the unilateral decisions had vitiated the electoral rolls. The bench, however, said an ex parte order could not be passed without hearing the respondents. It also noted that suspending the CEC could stall the EC’s functioning and asked, “Who will conduct the elections?” Singh submitted that the two election commissioners could discharge the functions.
The bench also issued notice on a connected petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and tagged it with Singh’s petition. It directed the EC and Centre to furnish relevant details.
On Form 6, the bench said, “Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us,” and said it would examine the records to determine who had modified it. EC officials maintained that Form 6 itself was not changed, but a declaration was attached through the Bihar SIR order. They said the declaration was attached during the June 24, 2025 Bihar SIR order, which was upheld by the apex court in its May 27 order, as noted in the EC’s September 26 press note.
The proceedings came ahead of a proposed INDIA bloc protest outside the EC headquarters on Tuesday demanding Kumar’s removal over the SIR row. After the court’s notice, Congress, CPI, AAP and BJD leaders demanded his immediate resignation. Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi alleged that Kumar had changed Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally” and said those responsible would be held accountable.
The BJP, meanwhile, said the notices showed that institutions were functioning independently and there was no atmosphere of “fear and dictatorship”.
The controversy followed a September 25 report in The Indian Express claiming that Sandhu and Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over 10 months to SIR-related decisions and orders allegedly issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The report triggered opposition protests demanding Kumar’s removal.
CJI Kant said the court could not decide the matter solely on the basis of the report and would have to examine the responses of the EC and Centre.