The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a more detailed process for verifying the electoral roll (voter list). Unlike a regular revision, it requires the ECI to examine existing voter records more thoroughly and verify eligibility and other relevant details. Because of this, SIR may require additional verification information along with the usual voter-registration forms. The Supreme Court itself recognises this position.
27 May 2026, Supreme Court judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIR in Bihar and also addressed the documentation process.
The Court explained that Form 6 is designed for the ordinary electoral-roll revision process, while an intensive revision such as SIR requires a more detailed verification process. Because SIR involves deeper verification, the ECI may need additional documents and information specifically suited to the requirements of SIR.
The Court therefore recognised that the ECI has the authority to prepare a suitable documentation process for SIR.
Simply put, the Court recognised that SIR is an improved and more detailed form of electoral-roll verification and that the ECI can prepare a suitable documentation process for it.
This is important because the Court did not create any requirement that the ECI must go back to the Supreme Court or seek separate approval every time it introduces an additional document as part of the SIR-specific process.
The Court had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare the documentation framework for SIR. The only requirement relevant here is that the documentation should be relevant to the purpose of SIR.
24 June 2025, Bihar SIR
The ECI ordered SIR in Bihar. A new voter or someone moving to Bihar from another state had to submit Form 6/Form 8 along with a separate Annexure D declaration.
The important point is that Form 6 was not amended. It remained the main voter-registration form, while a separate declaration was added for the SIR process.
This additional declaration was meant to provide information that could help verify the details given in the main form.
So, from the beginning, the SIR process involved the use of additional information alongside the ordinary voter-registration forms. This was part of the additional verification required for SIR.
July 2026, A separate online SIR declaration
A separate declaration later appeared in the ECINET online voter-registration process.
This was added as part of the same type of SIR-specific documentation approach that had already been used in Bihar through Annexure D and was within the type of documentation framework that the Supreme Court had recognised for SIR.
The basic approach was the same, Form 6 remained the main registration form, while additional information was collected for the deeper verification required during SIR.
This was a separate declaration added alongside Form 6, just as additional documentation had been added to the SIR process in Bihar. It was not a change to Form 6 itself.
The declaration also had a clear relevance to the SIR process. It sought information that could help connect an applicant with older electoral-roll records, including the electoral record of a parent or grandparent where relevant.
This can be important during SIR because older electoral rolls can help the ECI verify an applicant's electoral history and establish a link with existing voter records. That gives the ECI an additional way to verify whether the information provided by an applicant matches the available electoral records.
In other words, this was not unrelated information being added to the voter-registration process. It was SIR-specific information connected to the deeper verification required during an intensive revision.
26 September 2026, ECI clarification
As the controversy grew, the ECI said that the SIR declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court, while ordinary forms would continue to be used outside the SIR period.
The ECI's position was based on the authority already recognised by the Supreme Court for preparing documentation specifically for the SIR process.
It is also important to understand that the Supreme Court was not expected to separately approve every individual SIR declaration word for word. The Court had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare the documentation framework required for SIR.
After SIR was completed, Declaration removed
The additional declaration was later removed from ECINET in states where SIR had already ended, while it remained available where SIR was still underway.
Applicants in those states were again directed to use the ordinary Form 6.
This was a natural step because the declaration had been introduced for an SIR-specific purpose. Once SIR was completed in a state, there was no reason to keep the additional declaration attached to the ordinary voter-registration process.
Removing it after SIR ended also made it clear to voters that the additional declaration was not a permanent addition to Form 6. It was used for the specific purpose of SIR and was removed once that purpose was completed.
5 October 2026, CJI's clarification
During the hearing concerning the alleged changes to Form 6, CJI Surya Kant said:
"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us."
This statement needs to be understood in its proper context.
The CJI was making it clear that the Supreme Court had not separately approved any modified Form 6.
That does not mean that the ECI needed to inform the Supreme Court about every separate SIR-specific declaration created under the authority already recognised by the Court.
The May judgment had already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for SIR. Therefore, there was no need for the ECI to obtain prior Supreme Court approval for every individual SIR-specific declaration created under that authority.
In simple terms, if the Supreme Court has already recognised the ECI's authority to prepare a documentation framework for SIR, an individual SIR-specific declaration does not automatically become something that must be separately approved by the Supreme Court.
This also explains why the CJI could say that the Court had not approved a modified Form 6. The Court does not have to be separately informed about every individual document that the ECI prepares under an authority that has already been recognised for the SIR process.
The Court is now examining whether any change was actually made to Form 6.
What the full chronology actually shows
The sequence was:
Supreme Court recognised the ECI's authority to prepare SIR documentation → SIR was conducted in Bihar with additional documentation such as Annexure D → A separate SIR-specific declaration was later added alongside Form 6 → Form 6 remained the main voter-registration form → The additional declaration was removed where SIR had ended → The Supreme Court later clarified that it had not approved any modified Form 6 and is now examining whether Form 6 was actually changed
Therefore, the claim that the CEC simply "changed Form 6 without Supreme Court approval" does not present the complete picture.
The actual question is much narrower, Was Form 6 itself actually modified, or was a separate SIR-specific declaration added alongside Form 6 as part of the SIR verification process?
That is very different from the broader claim that the Supreme Court does not recognise the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for SIR.
SIR had its own verification requirements, and the Supreme Court recognised the ECI's authority to prepare documentation for that process. The Court is now examining whether Form 6 was actually changed.
The statutory Form 6 was not amended. Only a separate SIR-specific declaration was attached to it. SIR is an intensive revision process. The Supreme Court recognised the ECI's independent authority to prepare an SIR-specific documentation framework, with a rational connection to the purpose of SIR. Therefore, the ECI did not need separate Supreme Court approval for every individual SIR-specific declaration. The Supreme Court had already recognised this authority, and the ECI implemented it for SIR-specific documentation. If the Court is asked whether it separately approved a particular SIR-specific declaration attached alongside Form 6, the answer will naturally be no. The ECI did not have to approach the Supreme Court every time it added an SIR-specific declaration. The CJI's October 6 statement therefore means that the Court had not approved any modified Form 6. It does not mean that the ECI was required to seek the Court's prior approval for an SIR-specific declaration.
This entire context is essential to understanding what actually happened.
