The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday clarified that it had not expressed any view on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) decision to modify Form 6, which first-time voters use to apply for enrolment in electoral rolls.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the revised form was not before the court when it heard the matter concerning the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. Its observations on October 5, therefore, could not be interpreted as either endorsing or rejecting the changes.

“What was said was that when the Bihar SIR matter was before us, the new Form 6 was not there. That does not mean it was either approved or disapproved by the SC,” Justice Bagchi said.

The clarification followed a submission by a petitioner’s counsel that the ECI had claimed the revised form carried the SC’s approval. Referring to the court’s October 5 observations, the counsel sought directions on the issue.

The CJI, however, said the court had not been approached on the question of the revised form. “There was no application concerning the new Form 6. That is all we have said. Whether approved or not approved. Don’t pick up words like this only for yourself, please,” he told the counsel.

The controversy centres on an additional declaration introduced by the ECI in the revised Form 6 during the SIR exercise. Applicants are required to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared on an electoral roll prepared during an earlier intensive revision.

The requirement has drawn criticism over concerns that it could complicate voter registration, particularly for first-time applicants whose families do not feature in older electoral rolls. Questions have also been raised over whether the ECI could introduce the declaration without formally amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to reports, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had also objected to the inclusion of the declaration without an amendment to the rules.

The controversy intensified after reports that the online application system prevented applicants from submitting Form 6 without responding to the declaration, even though it was not marked as mandatory.

In a press note issued on September 26, the ECI had observed that the additional declaration introduced during the SIR had been upheld by the SC. The court clarified on October 5 that it had not approved any modification to Form 6.