Supreme Court Clarifies Stance on ECI's Revised Form 6
The Supreme Court has stated it neither approved nor disapproved the Election Commission's revised Form 6 for voter registration.
Supreme Court confirms it did not approve ECI's Form 6 modifications.
The revised Form 6 was not presented during the Bihar SIR hearing.
Concerns raised about the additional declaration in Form 6 affecting first-time voters.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India clarified its position regarding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) revised Form 6, stating that it has neither approved nor disapproved the modifications. Form 6 is essential for individuals registering as voters for the first time and is currently being utilized during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across various states.
The clarification came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. They noted that the revised Form 6 was not in existence when the Bihar SIR case was previously discussed, emphasizing that the Court's remarks made on October 5 should not be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection of the form. Justice Bagchi reiterated that the issue of Form 6 had not been brought before the Court, thus there was no basis for any approval or disapproval.
The Supreme Court's statement followed arguments from a petitioner who claimed that the ECI misrepresented the revised Form 6 as having received the Court's approval. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the Court's previous remarks, asserting that the ECI's publication of the altered Form 6 as approved was misleading. Chief Justice Kant responded firmly, indicating that there was no application regarding the new Form 6 and urged the petitioner's counsel not to misinterpret the Court's words.
The modified Form 6 has sparked controversy due to the ECI's introduction of an additional declaration requiring applicants to disclose whether their name or that of a parent or grandparent appeared in earlier electoral rolls. Critics argue this requirement could pose challenges for first-time voters, particularly those from families not listed in previous rolls. Additionally, concerns were raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi about the legality of altering a statutory form without proper amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The situation has been further complicated by reports indicating that applicants were unable to submit the online form without responding to the additional declaration, despite it not being marked as mandatory. The ECI had previously claimed in a press note that the additional declaration was upheld by the Supreme Court, a statement the Court has now clarified is inaccurate. Moving forward, the implications of this clarification on the voter registration process and the ECI's actions will be closely monitored as the electoral landscape evolves.
