Changes to Form 6 were not made by the court; even judges do not have post-retirement immunity from CEC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) distanced itself from the controversial changes made in Form 6 for registration of new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in several states and shifted the scrutiny to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Also Read: Protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar updated on 5th October

“We make it clear that we have not made any modifications to Form 6,” said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who heads the three-judge bench.

Form 6 is a statutory document set out in the Schedule of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Amendments to Form 6 should be made through a proper legislative process and not by unilateral administrative action.

Changes to Form 6 included a supplementary declaration form on additional linkage requirements for voter registration. New applicants must indicate whether they, their parents or grandparents have been entered in previous SIR electoral rolls. Furthermore, answering these mapping and linking questions has been made a strict prerequisite for submitting Form 6 applications.

The oral observation was made during the hearing of two petitions seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of bias, administrative unilateralism and procedural overreach during the SIR process.

Also read: When the Election Commission was rocked by internal disputes | Explained

“legal immunity”

Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out how the CEC and election commissioners continue to enjoy immunity from legal proceedings even after dismissal, a protection that even judges do not have.

Section 16 of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and Other Electoral Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act 2023 provides that “no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or has been a Chief Electoral Commissioner or an Electoral Commissioner…”

“Protection in the exercise of office is always understood. But the ‘was’ in the provision is perhaps only a protection with respect to the President. It does not apply to judges either… Look at the Judicial Inquiry Act,” Justice Bagchi observed.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for petitioner Rakesh Singh, said the statute “elevated the CEC to such a high position, perhaps higher than a Supreme Court judge”. Mr. Singh argued that Section 18 of the 2023 Act and the Constitution do not confer any individual title on the CEC. He was the chairman of a multi-member committee, not the committee itself, the senior counsel argued.

He urged the court to suspend the CEC or strip it of any powers until the Supreme Court gives a final call on the petition.

“But who will manage the elections? You have to file petitions keeping in mind the functioning of the constitution,” Justice Bagchi replied.

Mr. Singh said this is a serious situation that threatens the very foundation of democracy. He asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction on the petition, saying “the earth will burn”. Alternatively, according to him, the court should at least include in its resolution that the bpdy survey should decide unanimously during the hearing of the case.

The presiding judge, while issuing the notice, said that the court would act on the basis of verified information regarding the allegations.

“We will examine the records, we will look into the specific records. First we would like to see some answers (from the EC),” Chief Justice Kant said on the application for preliminary injunctions. Justice Bagchi added that the Supreme Court cannot be asked to “put the cart before the horse and assume that all EC orders have been issued unilaterally”.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy for petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi pointed out that 30% of voters in Delhi and 25% of voters in West Bengal were struck out in the SIR process. She said thousands of appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal.

“Your Lordship has overseen that (SIR)… Voters have already been excluded from one election cycle. Another election cycle will begin… See how SIR was conducted in Delhi. Form 6 has two new conditions. They have been circulated. As per the plan, Form 6 cannot be modified,” the senior advocate said.

The attorney general said the franchise rights of the world’s largest democracy were under threat. The petition said the CEC is directly liable under the law and should be subject to police investigation, collection of evidence and regular court proceedings as an “ordinary accused”.

“The SIR is imposed by the government which is overseen by this court and the functioning of the CEC is biased to say the least,” said a senior lawyer.

The court marked both the petitions and said it may list the case for next week to hear the Commission’s side.

Published – 05 Oct 2026 14:43 IST