SIR row: Modified Form 6 not approved by apex court, says CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant today said that the Supreme Court has not approved any modified version of Form 6 used for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), as reported by Live Law.

The apex court made the observation while hearing a writ petition seeking the quashing of 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, alongside requests for a judicial probe and prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Supreme Court's position on modified Form 6 

The clarification from the top court assumes significance following recent assertions by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The ECI had issued a press release claiming that a new declaration annexed to the online Form 6 for the SIR process had received approval from the Supreme Court in a May judgment relating to the Bihar SIR.

MUST READ | SIR row: Supreme Court refuses interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks EC response

Disputing this claim, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana pointed out that the Supreme Court had no occasion to examine the newly introduced Form 6 declaration because it was implemented after the court's earlier judgment.

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it," CJI Surya Kant remarked during the proceedings, as reported by Live Law.

Under the modified declaration, new voters seeking registration are required to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR — a requirement that was not part of earlier Form 6 declarations used in other states.

The changes sparked controversy after reports emerged that two Election Commissioners had objected to the modifications, maintaining that such alterations could not be executed without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Notice issued on plea challenging ECI decisions 

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi (Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India). The petitioner sought:

• The constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, supported by cybersecurity and IT experts. 
• Directions to register complaints and initiate prosecution against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials for alleged breach of official duty under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 

While the CJI noted during the hearing that the prayers in the petition appeared to be "jumbled up," Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, stood by the prayers made in the plea.

DON'T MISS | Election Commission orders special drive in 20 states where SIR is done, plain statutory Form 6 to be used: Report

The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition and tagged it with a similar pending matter challenging the decisions of the Election Commission of India, Live Law reported.