Bihar SIR Dispute Reaches Supreme Court as Form 6 Petition Draws Election Commission’s Response

Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission’s Response

The dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has returned to the Supreme Court, bringing the procedures used to register voters under renewed legal scrutiny.

On October 27, 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a fresh petition filed by Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen. The petition alleges that changes were made to the online version of Form 6 during the Bihar SIR exercise without the court’s approval.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took note of the submissions made by senior advocate and MP Maneka Guruswamy, who represented Sen. The court said the issues would be examined and sought a response from the poll panel.

What Is the Form 6 Dispute?

Form 6 is the statutory application used by eligible individuals to seek inclusion in electoral rolls. The controversy concerns an additional declaration displayed alongside the online form during the SIR process.

The petition alleges that the presentation of the declaration amounted to an unauthorised change and that the Election Commission’s communication had suggested the Supreme Court had approved the arrangement. The petitioners argue that the issue should be examined alongside other pending challenges to the electoral-roll revision process.

The Supreme Court had previously clarified that it had not adjudicated upon or approved a modified Form 6. The latest proceedings will consider the fresh plea and the arguments raised by the parties.

Election Commission Rejects Allegation That Form 6 Was Amended

The Election Commission has denied amending the statutory Form 6. In its response to related petitions, the poll panel maintained that the declaration used during the SIR exercise was a separate document intended to help verify applicants’ eligibility and connect their details with earlier electoral rolls.

The Commission said the SIR exercise was conducted under its legal and constitutional authority and that the relevant orders were approved unanimously by its three members.

However, the ECI acknowledged that the way the declaration appeared on its online platform could create the impression that Form 6 itself had been amended. It said the online application process would be separated into two components—the statutory form and the SIR declaration—to align the online process with the procedure used for physical applications.

Petitioners Given Time to Respond

During the same proceedings, the Supreme Court granted petitioners 10 days to file a rejoinder to the Election Commission’s affidavit defending the SIR process. The affidavit addressed wider challenges to the poll panel’s decisions and its internal decision-making procedures.

The proceedings involve broader questions about the conduct of the revision exercise, the authority under which electoral-roll procedures were implemented, and the interpretation of the Commission’s decisions.

The court’s notice on Sen’s petition allows the issue to be examined further. It should not be interpreted as a final finding that the alleged changes were unlawful.

Why the Case Matters for Voter Registration

The Form 6 dispute has wider implications because the form is used by eligible citizens seeking enrolment as voters. The case raises questions about how additional verification requirements are presented to applicants, the legal distinction between a statutory form and a supplementary declaration, and how changes to online electoral procedures should be communicated.

The proceedings also underline the importance of transparency and clarity in electoral administration. The petitioners’ allegations and the Election Commission’s defence remain competing positions that must be assessed through the legal process.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court is expected to consider the parties’ submissions as the wider SIR-related cases proceed. The Election Commission has defended the legality of the exercise and rejected the claim that the statutory form was amended, while the petitioners seek judicial scrutiny of the disputed process.

Conclusion: The Bihar SIR dispute has entered another stage of judicial scrutiny after the Supreme Court sought the Election Commission’s response to the Form 6 petition. The outcome will depend on the legal arguments and records examined by the court.