In autumn 2026, the Supreme Court of India was hearing a case concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The proceedings brought attention to Form 6, used for inclusion in those rolls. The bench hearing the matter was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
On September 26, 2026, the Election Commission of India issued a press release that asserted the Supreme Court had upheld the new version of Form 6 in a judgment delivered earlier that year, in May 2026. The release suggested that the apex court’s earlier decision had given the form a judicial seal of approval.
Supreme Court Clarifies It Never Approved New Form 6. Amid the Bihar voter roll revision row, the court says it had not ruled on the revised Form 6, contrary to the Election Commission's earlier claim. Read More: https://t.co/UpSKqgMLOU #SupremeCourt #ElectionCommission #Form6 #SIR #VoterRolls #Bihar #IndianJudiciary #IndiaNews
Just over a week later, on October 5, 2026, the same Supreme Court bench reconvened to hear further arguments in the Bihar SIR case. During the hearing, the justices directly addressed the Election Commission’s assertion. Chief Justice Surya Kant, speaking for the bench, made it clear that the Court had not yet examined the matter concerning the new Form 6. He emphasized that no judgment had been passed on its validity or acceptability, countering the Commission’s claim of prior endorsement.
Adding to the bench’s remarks, Justice Joymalya Bagchi (referred to in the records as Justice Bagchi) declared, “There is no adjudication on the new Form 6.
The clarification did not end with the October 5 hearing. On October 12, 2026, the bench—still under the leadership of Chief Justice Surya Kant—issued a more explicit statement. The wording clarified the Court’s position that it had neither approved nor disapproved the new Form 6. The justices reiterated that the specific issue of the form had never been part of the proceedings in the Bihar SIR case, and therefore no adjudication had taken place.
Adding to the bench’s remarks, Justice Joymalya Bagchi (referred to in the records as Justice Bagchi) declared, “There is no adjudication on the new Form 6.” The quote reiterated the Court’s position that the form’s legal status remained unresolved. By stating that there had been no adjudication, the justice indicated the Court had not ruled on the form.
While the legal dispute swirled, the Election Commission maintained that Form 6 itself had not been altered in substance. According to the Commission, the only change was the addition of a declaration intended for new voters. The form, which is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls, therefore retained its original structure; the extra declaration was presented as a supplementary requirement rather than a revision of the existing fields.
Bihar SIR happened & relocated and migrated voters named deleted and it was declared successful. Then why special trains are being run for the bihar voters to reach bihar and vote? @manojkjhadu @yadavtejashwi @pbhushan1 @PrashantKishor @ECISVEEP https://t.co/StTapHU2Ki
The disagreement over Form 6 concerns voter inclusion procedures. The Court’s clarification addresses perceptions about judicial backing. The Court’s stance means officials lack a judicial directive on the form.
As of the October 12 clarification, the Supreme Court has positioned itself as neutral on the question of Form 6, stating unequivocally that it has neither approved nor disapproved the instrument. The Election Commission’s earlier claim of judicial endorsement stands contradicted by the Court’s own words.