The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea alleging changes to Form 6, the application used by new voters to register on the electoral roll, while also hearing petitions accusing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of taking unilateral decisions. The court refused to pass any interim order against the CEC, saying it would consider the matter after receiving the responses and examining the official record.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleged that Form 6 had been altered and that new voters in Delhi were being asked to provide additional information unlawfully.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench also comprising Justices Joymala Bagchi and V. Mohana, said the court had not approved any change to Form 6 and would examine the issue once the relevant records were placed before it.
“The court has not approved any change in Form 6. Once the record comes, we will see who made the change.”
No Interim Relief To CEC Plea
The Form 6 matter was heard alongside two petitions alleging that CEC Gyanesh Kumar took decisions without the consent or approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Singh, sought Kumar’s suspension until the petitions were decided. He argued that decisions within the Election Commission should be taken either unanimously or by majority.
The Supreme Court declined to suspend the CEC. It also refused to issue an interim direction requiring the Election Commission to act only by majority, observing that such a requirement is already part of the law.
Also Read: SC Refuses CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Interim Suspension, Seeks Response On ‘Unilateral Decision’
SC Cautions Against Media-Based Orders
The bench stressed that it would not act solely on the basis of a media report cited in the petitions.
The court said the report could be completely accurate, partly correct or wrong, and that it would not take action without hearing the other side and examining the official record.
The petitions cite at least 14 objections raised by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026, claiming that decisions and orders were issued in the name of the Election Commission without their consent.
The court said the Election Commission should first be given an opportunity to respond. It also indicated that if the record establishes that anything improper was done, the court could subsequently set aside the action in question.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
