Supreme Court seeks EC reply on alleged Form 6 changes in Bihar rolls

The Supreme Court sought the Election Commission's response to Dola Sen's petition over alleged Form 6 changes. The case will test claims surrounding Bihar's electoral roll revision and the Commission's approval process.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Election Commission's response to a fresh petition by Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen, who alleged that changes were made to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls without the court's approval, Press Trust of India reported.

The court also gave the petitioners 10 days to respond to the Election Commission's written submission defending the revision. The poll body said the exercise was authorised by law and the relevant orders were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions on the revision process. Senior advocate and MP Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, said the Election Commission had wrongly claimed that the changes to Form 6 were approved by the Supreme Court.

Sen, who is from the Mamata Banerjee faction, raised concerns over alleged changes to the online version of Form 6 and a subsequent Election Commission press note suggesting that the Supreme Court had authorised or upheld the changes during the Bihar revision proceedings.

Guruswamy argued that the Election Commission had gone beyond the Supreme Court's directions in the Bihar case. She said the court had not authorised the alleged changes and that the issue should be considered along with the other pending petitions challenging the revision process.

Issuing notice on Sen's petition, the Chief Justice said all the issues would be examined. The court asked senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the first petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, to file a reply within 10 days to the Election Commission's affidavit submitted late on Monday evening.

In its 248-page response to the petition against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the decisions taken by the poll body, the Election Commission strongly defended the revision exercise. It rejected allegations that Form 6 had been amended and said no changes were made to the statutory form used for voter registration, PTI reported.

"The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate," said the affidavit filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the poll body.

The Election Commission said all three members had unanimously approved the filing of the affidavit. It also said the revision orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were issued through unanimous decisions and in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Section 18 requires the Commission to conduct its business unanimously as far as possible and by majority when members differ. The Election Commission said any suggestion, observation or query raised by a commissioner while a file was being processed did not amount to a decision of the Commission.

The poll body explained that files are first sent to one election commissioner, then to the other and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner. Approved decisions carry the signatures of all three. When urgent orders are required and members are not available in person, approval is obtained electronically and later recorded on the file, it said.

On the dispute over Form 6, the Election Commission said it "unequivocally rejects the misleading contention" that the statutory form had been changed. Form 6 is used by eligible people to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls.

According to the affidavit, the declaration attached during the revision exercise was a separate document provided under the revision orders and "is not a part of Form 6". The declaration used during the Bihar exercise was later replaced in subsequent orders to allow applicants to provide details about themselves, their parents or grandparents from the 2002-03 electoral rolls and avoid submitting additional documents once the details were successfully matched.

The Commission, however, acknowledged that the way the declaration was displayed on its online platform "could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made". It said the declaration had been merged with the online Form 6 page so applicants would need only one one-time password and one electronic signature instead of two.

After deliberations, the Electoral Rolls Division decided on October 21 that online applications would also be divided into two parts, as is the case with physical forms.

The petitions were filed after The Indian Express reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the revision of electoral rolls. According to the report, they said the decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The claim led to protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party, which demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Kumar.

The Supreme Court will examine the allegations concerning the online declaration and Form 6 alongside the other challenges to the electoral roll revision after receiving the Election Commission's response and the petitioners' replies.