The row came to light after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to the incorporation of the SIR declaration into Form 6, saying the statutory form could not be changed without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
At the heart of the latest dispute is whether the declaration currently linked to Form 6 is the same one the Supreme Court examined while hearing challenges to the Bihar SIR.
What is Form 6?
Form 6 is the prescribed application for an Indian citizen seeking inclusion in the electoral roll as a new voter. The ECI says an Indian citizen who has attained, or will attain, the age of 18 on one of the qualifying dates—January 1, April 1, July 1 or October 1—can apply through Form 6, provided they are resident in the constituency and are not otherwise disqualified.
The form requires details such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, address and other information needed for enrolment. The statutory Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
What is the Form 6 controversy?
The controversy centres on an additional declaration introduced on the ECI’s online voter-registration system. The Indian Express first reported in July that the online Form 6 acquired a new section asking applicants whether they, their parents or grandparents had been included in the electoral roll during the last SIR.
Applicants could be asked to provide details such as the Assembly constituency, polling booth and serial number from the previous SIR electoral roll. Although the section was reportedly not marked mandatory, applicants could not complete the online submission without responding to it, the news report said.
The declaration currently linked to Form 6 asks applicants to provide information connecting themselves or their relatives to the electoral rolls of the last SIR. Depending on the response, applicants may have to provide details such as the relative’s name, relationship, EPIC number, state, district, Assembly constituency, part number and serial number.
The ECI’s online voter portal currently lists Form 6 separately from a “Declaration Form” for SIR-related applications.
The declaration also carries a warning that false statements can attract punishment under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, including imprisonment of up to one year, a fine or both.
LiveLaw reported that the issue became more significant because the ECI’s earlier SIR process in Bihar had used a separate declaration, known as Annexure D, rather than this later version of the declaration.
Who can change Form 6?
Since Form 6 is embedded in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, it cannot be changed informally or solely through an internal decision of the ECI. Under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Central government has the authority to make or amend the relevant rules, usually through a notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice. Such amendments are also subject to parliamentary oversight.
The Indian Express reported that this was the basis of the objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi. According to the report, Joshi had argued that Form 6 could not be changed without the government amending the 1960 Rules, while Sandhu described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and said it “must be removed immediately”.
Form 6 row: What SC said on Bihar SIR
On June 24, 2025, the ECI ordered an SIR of Bihar’s electoral rolls. The exercise sought to verify voter eligibility and update the rolls.
The top court, in its May 27, 2026 judgment, upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the Bihar SIR and examined whether the documentation requirements adopted for the exercise were legally permissible.
The apex court held that Form 6 could not necessarily be applied “literally” to an SIR exercise and recognised that the ECI had some residual authority to create a documentation framework suited to such a revision.
It said Form 6 was “tailored to the process of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) of the RP Act” and may not, in all situations, be capable of literal application to an SIR. The court said the Commission, therefore, retained “a degree of residual authority” to formulate an appropriate documentation framework.
But the top court also placed a limit on this authority, saying: “Such authority, however, is not unbounded.” It held that any departure from the statutory framework must have a “rational nexus” with the objective of the SIR.
Did the SC uphold the present declaration?
The ECI said on September 26: “The declaration attached to Form 6 has been upheld by the Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per the Rules [the Registration of Electors Rules 1960] will be used.”
However, LiveLaw reported that the specific declaration now under controversy was not examined by the Supreme Court in the Bihar SIR judgment.
The declaration considered in the Bihar case was the one contained in Annexure D of the June 2025 order. The later declaration requires applicants to provide additional information linking themselves or their relatives to the previous SIR rolls.
The dispute, therefore, turns on two related questions: whether the declaration currently being used is merely an additional SIR requirement rather than a change to statutory Form 6, as the ECI maintains, and whether the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR judgment can be read as having upheld this specific declaration.
