During proceedings focused on the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, the Supreme Court clarified that the new Form 6 had not come before it for adjudication. Three justices — Chief Justice of India Surya Kant alongside Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana — noted during proceedings that the updated version of Form 6 had not yet come into existence at the time the Bihar SIR matter was heard.

At a hearing tied to the SIR petition, the panel made plain that its remarks from 5 October should not be read as endorsing or rejecting the matter at hand. In reply to those comments, advocate Narendra Mishra — acting on behalf of a petitioner — drew the court's attention to a position the Chief Justice had taken the week prior, namely that the Election Commission's assertion of Supreme Court validation for the revised Form 6 was not borne out by the record, given that the form had not yet come into existence at the time the Bihar SIR judgment was delivered.

The document leaves open whether the measure would receive approval or rejection from the Supreme Court. Justice Bagchi indicated that the matter would be taken up for review. A notice having been issued on the petition, the bench scheduled the matter for October 27, a date already set aside for related challenges filed against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

On 5 October, the court stated in its ruling that no altered version of Form 6 — the document used to add names to electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision exercise — had received judicial authorisation, with the bench making clear that approval for any such modification had not been granted. The judges on the bench noted, during proceedings on a petition aimed at barring Gyanesh Kumar from holding the post of Chief Election Commissioner, that once the record was produced they intended to examine which parties had made alterations to it.

That October 5 statement of clarification followed objections put forward by Menaka Guruswamy, appearing as senior counsel on behalf of petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, over amendments that had been introduced to Form 6. A petition filed by Tripathi calls for 14 decisions attributed to the CEC to be set aside on grounds that they were made without collective authorisation.

A declaration attached to the online Form 6 used in the ongoing SIR process across certain states had, according to the Election Commission's own prior statements, received Supreme Court approval. Under the revised Form 6, anyone applying for first-time voter registration had to declare whether they or either of their parents appeared in the earlier Summary of Identified Residents. No declaration of that kind appeared in the earlier version of Form 6 when other states underwent the SIR process.

Under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, anyone who makes a false statement in such a declaration faces penalties ranging from a fine to a custodial term of up to one year, or a combination of both. Revisions to the updated Form 6 declaration drew pushback from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who took the position that implementing such changes would require the Centre to first amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.