The Supreme Court on Monday, 5 October 2026, heard two petitions concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged unilateral decisions connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The hearing became particularly significant because of the controversy surrounding the modified Form 6, the statutory form used for seeking inclusion in an electoral roll.
The Court made one point clear during the hearing: it had not approved the modified Form 6 being used by the Election Commission.
At the same time, the Supreme Court did not suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Instead, it issued notices to the Union government, the ECI and other respondents and indicated that it would examine the relevant records before deciding whether any challenged decision was contrary to law.
That distinction matters. The Court has not, at this stage, held that the allegations against the CEC or the ECI are proved.
What are the cases before the Supreme Court?
The hearing concerned two connected matters:
1. Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026
2. Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India
W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026
The matters were heard by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
The petitions raise allegations concerning the manner in which certain ECI decisions relating to SIR were taken and challenge the legality of alleged unilateral decision-making.
What did the petitioners allege?
The petitions refer to allegations that a number of important decisions connected with the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the Election Commission despite objections allegedly recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to the material placed before the Court, the controversy concerns a series of decisions and directions issued during the SIR process.
The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to examine the original records of the Election Commission and determine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the poll panel.
The reliefs sought also include challenges to the disputed decisions and, in one petition, a request for an independent inquiry.
These are prayers and allegations made by the petitioners, not findings already recorded by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court refuses immediate suspension of Gyanesh Kumar
One of the most important developments on 5 October was the Court’s refusal to pass an ex parte interim order suspending CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought interim intervention against the CEC.
The Bench, however, indicated that it wanted the response of the Election Commission and the other respondents before passing such an order.
The Court consequently issued notice to:
- Union of India
- Election Commission of India
- CEC Gyanesh Kumar
- Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi
- Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg
- Director General (IT) Seema Khanna
The Court’s approach at this stage is therefore procedural as well as substantive: it wants the relevant records and responses before determining whether the alleged irregularities actually occurred.
What did the Supreme Court say about Form 6?
This was perhaps the most notable part of Monday’s hearing.
During the proceedings, the issue of a modified Form 6 came up.
Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified Form 6.
The CJI indicated that once the relevant records were produced, the Court wanted to know who had authorised the modification.
This clarification is important because the Election Commission had earlier referred to the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR while explaining the additional declaration attached to Form 6.
The Supreme Court’s position on 5 October was that its earlier judgment had not approved the subsequent modification now under controversy.
What is Form 6?
Form 6 is the prescribed application used by a person seeking inclusion of their name in an electoral roll as a voter.
The Election Commission’s current voter-registration guidance states that a person seeking registration as an elector ordinarily files the application in prescribed Form 6 before the concerned Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. The application can also be submitted through the prescribed online process.
That makes any change to the information required from a prospective elector legally significant.
The controversy in the present case concerns an additional declaration associated with the online Form 6 during the SIR exercise.
According to reports concerning the hearing, the modified declaration required applicants to provide information relating to whether they or their parents had been included in an earlier SIR electoral roll.
The precise legal authority for introducing that additional requirement is now one of the matters under scrutiny.
Why did the modified Form 6 become controversial?
The dispute is not simply about the wording of a form.
The larger question is whether an administrative requirement attached to voter registration was introduced through the legally permissible process and whether the Election Commission had the necessary authority to do so in the manner alleged.
Reports preceding the hearing said that the change had drawn objections from the two Election Commissioners.
The ECI, on the other hand, has maintained that its SIR-related decisions were taken in accordance with the applicable framework and has disputed suggestions that the Commission was functioning through an institutional split.
The Supreme Court has not yet finally determined which version of these competing accounts is correct.
What does the law say about decision-making in the Election Commission?
The issue of collective decision-making is directly relevant to the allegations.
Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 deals with the disposal of business of the Election Commission.
The provision says that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision.
It further provides that, as far as possible, the business of the Commission should be transacted unanimously. Where the CEC and other Election Commissioners differ, the matter is to be decided according to the majority.
This does not mean that every disagreement automatically makes an ECI decision illegal.
The actual question in the present litigation is whether the decisions under challenge were taken in accordance with the statutory mechanism and the facts recorded in the Commission’s official records.
That is precisely why the Supreme Court has sought the responses and relevant material.
What about the claim that the Supreme Court had approved the Form 6 change?
The Court’s 5 October clarification directly addresses this point.
The CJI stated that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6.
The Court therefore wants to examine the underlying records and determine how the modification came to be introduced.
This is also why it would be inaccurate, at this stage, to describe the hearing as a final judicial ruling that the ECI unlawfully changed Form 6.
The Court has questioned the basis of the claim that it approved the modification and has sought the material necessary to examine the issue.
Did the Supreme Court cancel the modified Form 6?
No.
The 5 October proceedings did not amount to a final judgment cancelling the modified Form 6.
The Court clarified that it had not approved the modification and sought records concerning who authorised it.
The legal validity and consequences of the disputed change remain matters for further consideration.
Did the Supreme Court suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar?
No.
The Court declined to pass the requested ex parte interim suspension order at this stage.
Instead, it issued notices and sought responses from the concerned authorities and officials.
This is important because a notice issued by the Supreme Court should not be reported as a finding of wrongdoing.
The allegations remain to be examined.
What is the significance of the 2026 Bihar SIR judgment?
The Election Commission had relied on the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar Special Intensive Revision.
In that judgment, the Supreme Court recognised that the Election Commission has the power to undertake an intensive revision of electoral rolls, while also emphasising that the exercise must remain within the law and be accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards.
The Court noted that existing electoral entries should not be disturbed lightly and that action affecting them must be supported by due process and adequate material.
However, the disputed modified Form 6 was introduced after the judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s 5 October clarification is significant: the May judgment should not automatically be treated as judicial approval of a subsequent modification that the Court did not itself examine.
What happened after the Supreme Court hearing?
The controversy continued on 6 October 2026.
Opposition parties announced a march towards the Election Commission headquarters in New Delhi over the SIR controversy and their demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar. This is a political development separate from the Supreme Court’s adjudication of the pending petitions.
The Court proceedings themselves remain focused on the legal questions raised in the petitions and the responses and records that the respondents are required to place before the Court.
As of 6 October 2026, there is no final Supreme Court judgment holding CEC Gyanesh Kumar guilty of the allegations raised in these petitions.
There is also no final judicial ruling declaring the disputed Form 6 modification illegal.
What happens next?
The immediate next step is for the respondents to place their responses before the Supreme Court.
The Court has indicated that it wants to examine the relevant records before determining whether any decision was taken contrary to the applicable legal framework.
That could bring several questions into sharper focus:
- Who authorised the disputed Form 6 modification?
- Under what legal authority was the additional declaration introduced?
- What exactly was recorded by the members of the Election Commission?
- Were the disputed ECI decisions taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act?
- Did the May 2026 Bihar SIR judgment actually deal with the later Form 6 modification?
- If any decision is found to have been taken contrary to law, what legal consequence should follow?
For now, those questions remain open.
Why this hearing matters for voters
For an ordinary voter, the dispute may appear to be an institutional disagreement inside the Election Commission. But the consequences can be much more practical.
Electoral-roll revision determines who appears on the voter list. The procedure for inclusion, deletion, correction and verification therefore directly affects citizens’ ability to participate in elections.
Form 6 is particularly important because it is the route through which eligible persons seek inclusion in the electoral roll.
The Supreme Court’s intervention therefore goes beyond the wording of one form. It puts the spotlight on a broader principle: electoral administration must operate through the authority granted by law, and the records of a constitutional body matter when that authority is challenged.
Current legal position as of 6 October 2026
As of publication:
- The Supreme Court has issued notice in the petitions concerning the challenged ECI decisions.
- The Court has not suspended CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
- The Court has not passed a final judgment on the allegations of unilateral decision-making.
- CJI Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court did not approve the modified Form 6.
- The Court wants to examine the records concerning the modification.
- The legal validity of the disputed Form 6 requirement remains under consideration.
- The allegations made by the petitioners should not be treated as established facts unless and until the Court records such a finding.
The next stage of the case will depend on the responses and records placed before the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The 5 October hearing did not finally decide the allegations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission.
What the Court did do was put two issues under direct judicial scrutiny: how certain ECI decisions connected with SIR were taken, and who authorised the disputed modification of Form 6.
The Court’s clarification that it had not approved the modified Form 6 is particularly significant because the earlier reference to the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR judgment had become part of the public dispute.
For now, the case remains pending. The allegations require examination against the official record, and the Supreme Court has sought that record before reaching a final conclusion.
Legal position stated above is based on developments available as of 6 October 2026.
