While hearing the matter concerning the petition seeking directions against all decisions approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Chief Justice Surya Kant has clarified that the modified Form 6 has not been approved by the Court. 

The Court also said that it will examine as to who has modified Form 6.

The Court has refused to pass immediate ex-parte interim directions to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, and other respondents.

As reported by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi registered written dissents on record on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period. The objections pertained to administrative decisions and official orders issued without the knowledge, consent, or participation of the full Commission, four of which occurred on a single day.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, while refusing to pass any interim orders, issued notice in both the matters and sought responses from the Respondents.


In plea filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeking directions to quash the alleged unauthorized modifications made to Form 6 on the ECINet/ERONet, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA) as well as the newly enacted Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Act were infringed during the conduct of the Summary Intensive Revision (SIR).

Appearing for the Petitioner, Guruswamy submitted, "The Representation of the People Act, as well as the CEC Act, which the government has more recently pushed, those have been infringed...Let me give you an illustration, since it pertains most recently, for instance, to Delhi. Let us see how the SIR was conducted in Delhi. Form 6 has two new conditions added, though those Form 6s were circulated. Neither is the petitioner now allowed to be on the roll—I got a notice also based on this new Form 6, which cannot, under the Schedule, be modified."

To which Chief Justice Kant said, "Let's be very clear. Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let us also be clear that when the record will be produced, we would like to see who has modified."

Form-6 is an application form for New Voters under Rules 13(1) and (26) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 

The Court remarked that the prayers in the plea are not confined to common issues and are jumbled up.

Guruswamy said, "In Delhi, it's 30% of the electorate. In Bengal, it was 25% of the electorate. 16 lakh appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. You supervised that, we could not address it, and those members have been excluded from one election cycle already. Now there is another election cycle...I stand by those prayers. I stand by those prayers. Where is the infirmity in those prayers? I'd like to know, when the franchise rights of the world's largest democracy are under threat, and SIR is being imposed by the government, it is overseen by the court, and the Chief Election Commissioner's functioning is biased."

Justice Bagchi said, "We don't dispute that the prayers may require consideration. What we want to indicate to you is, these prayers appear to be disparate in respect of the respective states. Now, if you see prayer C, which requires... it is in respect of the appeals pending in West Bengal, whereas prayer B does not relate to West Bengal SIR."

Accordingly, the Court tagged the petition with the similar matter.

The plea was filed against the Ministry of Law & Justice, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Cabinet Secretary and others.

It highlighted that the investigative report demonstrates that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi repeatedly recorded written dissents and formal objections on at least 14 occasions across 10 months (from November 2025 to August 2026) against actions executed by the CEC and senior bureaucrats. For over four months (May to September 2026), no formal full-Commission meeting was convened, and orders were issued unilaterally without circulated agendas or post-meeting minutes.

It was alleged that on July 29, 2026, Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi took the unprecedented step of formally petitioning Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, terming Garg's action a "clear violation of Section 18" of the 2023 Act and demanding strict disciplinary action. It is added that on July 30, 2026, Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi jointly nullified and quashed Garg's order.

The Court had also issued notice in the plea against the deletion of names from the electoral roll under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Delhi. On August 31, the Election Commission published a draft electoral roll under which 47 lakh voters were deleted from the list of 1.45 crore total voters. Around one in three voters in Delhi were removed from the draft electoral roll published as part of the Special Intensive Revision of the voter list.

Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 59734/2026]

Tags: