Dipke, reacting on X on Monday, asked how the form could have been modified without the court’s approval and who had ordered the change. He alleged that Kumar was not acting independently, accused him of serving “political bosses” and called him the “biggest traitor of India”. The accusations are Dipke’s political claims and have not been established by the court.
The Supreme Court’s remarks came while a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard a petition challenging decisions and software changes allegedly introduced during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The bench also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” the Chief Justice said, adding that the court wanted to examine the official record to determine who, if anyone, had modified it. The bench issued notice and sought the Election Commission’s response rather than reaching any finding on responsibility or illegality.
The distinction is significant because the Election Commission maintains that Form 6 itself was never amended. Commission officials said an additional declaration was attached to the statutory form for the SIR exercise, and argued that the declaration had the Supreme Court’s backing. They rejected assertions that Kumar had unilaterally altered Form 6.
Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and is used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in an electoral roll. The contested SIR declaration sought additional information linking applicants, or specified relatives, to electoral rolls from an earlier intensive revision.
The dispute intensified after the Election Commission said in a September 26 statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It also said that forms prescribed under the 1960 rules would apply outside SIR periods.
Following Monday’s hearing, Commission officials reiterated that the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached through the Bihar SIR order of June 24, 2025, and that this was different from changing the statutory Form 6. That position leaves a central factual and legal question for the court: whether the online enrolment process amounted to a modification of the prescribed form or merely required a separate SIR-specific declaration.
The petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for him, raised the Form 6 issue and argued that additional information had been sought from people applying for enrolment. The petition challenges decisions, guidelines and software-related steps attributed to Kumar and seeks scrutiny of the manner in which they were introduced.
The bench did not accept the petitioner’s allegations as proved. It indicated that the Commission’s records would be necessary before determining what had been changed, who authorised it and whether the process complied with the governing legal framework.
Dipke’s intervention sharpened the political pressure already facing the poll panel. His Cockroach Janta movement has been campaigning for Kumar’s resignation and has organised protests over the SIR and alleged irregularities in electoral-roll management. The Election Commission has denied wrongdoing and has maintained that its institutional decisions were taken through the Commission’s established process.
Other political critics also seized on the court’s observation, but the Election Commission disputed claims that the Chief Election Commissioner had personally and illegally rewritten the form. Its officials said the SIR orders and the September 26 position had the approval of the full Commission, including Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
