The Election Commission of India issued a press note on September 26 stating that the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment had upheld the changes it made to Form 6, the application used for adding names to the electoral roll.
In that judgment, the Court allowed the commission to devise a documentation framework for Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) under Article 324, but it did not specifically endorse the July alteration of the online Form 6. The Court emphasized that any new framework must be "cognisant of the existing statutory scheme."—a point that the commission now cites.
The July change added a question asking whether the applicant’s name, a parent’s name, or a grandparent’s name appeared in the previous SIR roll. Though the field was not marked mandatory, respondents could not proceed with the online application without answering it, effectively making it compulsory.
Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections in July, arguing that the alteration was "unauthorised and illegal" and that a rule amendment was required. The commission’s September note did not address these concerns directly.
TMC leader Saket Gokhale seized the issue on X, accusing the commission of misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s ruling. "ECI Gyanesh Kumar caught lying again," he posted, demanding the government clarify the commission’s position.
The dispute now heads to the courts; the opposition has filed a petition seeking clarification of the commission’s authority, while the ECI prepares to defend its July changes. The next major development will be the High Court’s hearing scheduled for early October.