New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday said it will examine all decisions of the Election Commission (EC) and annul those found not to be in accordance with law, as it issued notices to the Centre and the poll body following pleas alleging that the EC took several decisions without the approval of the two election commissioners.
The court also made it clear that it has not approved any modifications to Form 6 that was being used by the EC during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states.
“We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the court,” a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, as it pointed out that the immunity granted to the CEC is something which even judges don’t have.
The bench said that “any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it”.
Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral rolls.
The top court, however, refused to pass any interim direction to restrain Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from taking any decision till the final disposal of the petition, with CJI Kant saying that the court cannot pass an order by relying solely on newspaper reports and it has to look into the responses of the EC and the Centre.
The developments came ahead of a proposed protest outside the EC headquarters Tuesday by the opposition INDIA bloc parties, which have been demanding CEC Kumar’s removal over the SIR row.
After the court’s notice, opposition parties including Congress, CPI, AAP and BJD demanded that CEC Kumar must resign immediately. Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said it is now established beyond doubt that CEC Kumar changed Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally” and that the CEC as well as everyone else involved in this “criminal assault on democracy” will be held accountable.
Election Commission officials, however, asserted that Form 6 was not changed but a declaration was attached to it through its Bihar SIR order.
Also Read : Former civil servants, activists seek CEC’s resignation; issue ‘people’s impeachment’ notice
A declaration was attached to Form 6 during the Bihar SIR order of June 24, 2025, which was upheld by the apex court in its May 27 order, as mentioned in the poll authority’s press note of September 26, they maintained.
On its part, the BJP said the Supreme Court’s notices are “proof” that all institutions in the country are “functioning independently” and there is no atmosphere of “fear and dictatorship”.
During the proceedings, the apex court said that it may examine the immunity clause put in the law which gives protection to the CEC.
Senior advocate Vikash Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought a direction in the interim to restrain Kumar from taking any further decisions. He also sought the CEC’s suspension, saying that every citizen is feeling unsafe with respect to voting rights.
The bench also issued notice on a connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and tagged it with Singh’s petition.
The bench said that if the CEC is suspended, the functioning of the Election Commission (EC) will be stalled.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked, adding that the EC has to work in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
Singh submitted that the two election commissioners can discharge the functions.
The bench stated that it has to seek the responses of the persons concerned before passing any order.
Singh submitted that the court should then order that the EC should take decisions only unanimously or by majority.
“There is a mandatory law and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we can very well undo it. If there is no unanimity or majority as mandated under the law, then the court can very well annul those decisions,” the CJI said.
The bench said it cannot pass any order ex parte and needs to see the decisions taken by the poll panel.
Singh claimed that the electoral roll itself has been “vitiated” because of the unilateral decisions by the CEC.
Justice Bagchi then asked whether the court can pass such an order ex parte, without hearing the respondents.
“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra vires. Can we ex parte come to a decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi said.
Singh claimed that the press release issued by the EC in the aftermath of the controversy triggered by a news report amounted to admitting to what the article stated.
The Indian Express reported September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The claim has sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding removal of CEC Kumar.
CJI Kant said that the court cannot pass an order by relying solely on newspaper reports and it has to look into the responses of the EC and the Centre.
Issuing notices to the EC and the Centre on Singh’s petition, the bench asked them to furnish all relevant details in their responses.
The PIL filed by Singh, a Patna resident, urged the top court to determine whether the CEC has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the EC as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
One of the main issues Tripathi’s plea raises is the alteration of Form 6. It alleges that the requirement relating to ancestral details and link with the previous SIR was introduced through the election panel’s software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules.
According to the petition, the two election commissioners other than Kumar objected to the change and asserted that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.
The EC Monday also denied that it had removed its press note of September 26 from its website related to Form 6.
In the press note, the EC had said that “the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. It had also said that for the non-SIR period, the forms applicable as per rules (Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used.
Subsequently, it had withdrawn the declaration, seeking details of parents of those applying for enrolment in SIR, from its online portals.
The online version of Form 6 and the declaration used to ask for a one-time password only once for both the documents and not twice. This gave rise to suggestions that the declaration was an integral part of Form 6, EC officials said.
Rahul Gandhi shared on X a screenshot of the September 26 EC statement. “It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally. This is just one more proof of him abusing his position to help the BJP.
“He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable,” Gandhi said.
BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said that approaching the Supreme Court with a PIL, the court holding a hearing and issuing notices to ensure the other party is also heard is a standard procedure and shows there is no atmosphere of fear in the country.
“It is both a democratic and a judicial process… The country is moving in a very democratic way. Everyone is speaking their heart out. All procedures and systems are being followed. Where else could there be a better model of democracy?” he said.
