Izmjene obrasca 6 nisu napravljene od strane suda; imunitet nakon umirovljenja od CEC-a nije dodijeljen čak ni sudijama: Vrhovni sud

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) distanced itself from recent changes to Form 6, a document used for registering new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several states. The court emphasized that any modifications to Form 6 were not made by judicial authorities, placing responsibility on the Election Commission of India (ECI). The court's remarks came during hearings on two petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, citing allegations of bias, administrative unilateralism, and procedural overreach during the SIR process. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench, stated clearly that modifications to Form 6 should be carried out through the proper legislative process rather than via unilateral administrative actions. Form 6, a statutory document outlined in the Schedule of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, includes a supplementary declaration form requiring new applicants to confirm whether they, their parents, or grandparents were registered in the previous SIR electoral rolls. Responses to these mapping and linkage questions became mandatory for submitting Form 6 applications. During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the legal immunity enjoyed by the CEC and Election Commissioners even after leaving office, a protection not extended to judges. Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act of 2023 grants immunity from legal proceedings to former CECs and Election Commissioners. However, Justice Bagchi noted that this protection might extend only to the President and not to judges, referencing the Judges Inquiry Act. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Singh, argued that the statute elevated the CEC to a position potentially higher than that of a Supreme Court judge. He contended that the CEC, as the Chairman of the multi-member Commission, did not hold an individual title under Section 18 of the 2023 Act or the Constitution. Singh urged the court to either suspend the CEC or divest him of authority until the court rendered a final verdict on the petition. Justice Bagchi cautioned against disrupting the constitutional framework, emphasizing the need to consider the practical implications of such a move. Singh further warned that the current situation posed a threat to democratic principles, stating that the country could face serious consequences if action was not taken. He alternatively suggested that the court should mandate the poll body to make unanimous decisions during the pendency of the case. The Chief Justice indicated that the court would examine the records and seek responses from the ECI before taking further action. Additional developments emerged as the Supreme Court addressed a separate petition concerning the conduct of Sanjay Raut, a Shiv Sena-UBT leader and co-petitioner alongside 12 others, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court issued notice to the Election Commission and CEC Gyanesh Kumar, requesting Raut to explain his behavior. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized that it was entertaining the plea provisionally, contingent upon Raut clarifying his conduct. The court also addressed concerns raised by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, regarding the deletion of approximately 30% of the electorate in Delhi and 25% in West Bengal during the SIR process. She highlighted the backlog of appeals pending before appellate tribunals in West Bengal, underscoring the gravity of the situation. The Supreme Court sought responses from the Election Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by INDIA bloc functionaries led by Rahul Gandhi. The petition alleged irregularities in the SIR process, arbitrary deletion of voters, undemocratic functioning of the poll panel, and flaws in EVM usage. The court dismissed suggestions that it could be browbeaten by mobilizing crowds, asserting its independence and awareness of external pressures. As the court prepared to hear further arguments, the focus remained on ensuring transparency and accountability in the electoral process, with the potential for significant legal and administrative repercussions depending on the findings of the ongoing investigations.