New Delhi: While hearing the pleas to prosecute the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, on Monday, October 5, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” observed Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
This raises eyebrows, particularly after the Election Commissioner of India (ECI), on September 29, issued a press release mentioning that the top court had approved modification of Form 6 in some states where the SIR is ongoing. Form 6 is used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls.
Under the new declaration, new voters must state whether they or their parents were mapped in the 2002 SIR list. This requirement was not included in the earlier Form 6 used during the SIR exercise in other states.
According to Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, altering the online version of Form 6 on the ECINET portal without amending statutory rules is illegal and unauthorised.
When the press note was released, many critics highlighted the point, asking the ECI to post the concerned Supreme Court’s order. There was no response from the poll body.
The Supreme Court’s admission only cements the misleading allegations.
On Monday, the three-member bench headed by the CJI, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, refused to take action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that he took decisions without consulting the other two Election Commissioners – Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.
The petitions came days after The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times in the past 10 months over decisions and orders related to the SIR of electoral rolls. They also wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan, raising concerns about the integrity of the voter software.
The ECI, however, said their letters to the Cabinet Secretary were related to an officer on deputation and did not concern policy or matters handled by its IT division.
| 
