The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has never adjudicated the validity of the Election Commission of India’s modified Form 6, the statutory application used by citizens to register as voters.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana stated that the modified version of the form was not in existence when the court examined the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar earlier this year. The judges emphasised that earlier observations by the court do not amount to constitutional adjudication of the new form.
“There has been no adjudication on the new Form 6 and that is all we have said,” the bench told counsel appearing in a fresh writ petition. “Whether approved or not approved… that was not there. Do not put words in our mouth.”
Justice Bagchi clarified that remarks made on October 5 only indicated that the modified form did not exist at the time of the earlier judgment on the Bihar revision exercise, and did not amount to either approval or disapproval by the court.
The bench directed that the matter be listed along with a batch of petitions relating to the special intensive revision, scheduled for hearing on October 27. On that date the court will also examine a wider challenge concerning the functioning of the Election Commission and the manner in which decisions on the electoral-roll revision have been taken.
ALSO READ : Supreme Court Rules Out Illegal Detentions and Movement Curbs for Peaceful Gatherings in Delhi
The clarification comes amid a dispute over claims that the court had upheld an additional declaration appended to Form 6 for the revision exercise. The declaration requires applicants to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during a previous special intensive revision.
Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Petitions before the court raise questions about whether an additional declaration can be introduced through an online form without following the statutory process for amending the rules. The issue has practical implications for first-time voters and those seeking re-enrolment whose names may not have appeared in earlier revision rolls.
On October 5 the court had already stated that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 and sought records to determine who authorised the changes.
-
-
-
-
