NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has described Rahul Gandhi’s allegation that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had “illegally and unilaterally” changed Form 6 as “misleading”.
Gandhi made the allegation on October 5 following observations by the Supreme Court during the hearing of a petition concerning decisions allegedly taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. In a post on X, Gandhi alleged that Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 without authority and had abused his position to favour the BJP.
Responding to the allegation, the ECI issued a “Fact Check” and said Gandhi’s statement was misleading. The Commission stated that the order directing the SIR in Bihar on June 24, 2025, had been issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission and was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 27, 2026.
The ECI also referred to its Press Note No. 120 dated September 26, 2026. According to the Commission, the press note stated that “the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, for persons seeking enrolment as new voters. In its May 27 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the Bihar SIR exercise and the documentation required from electors. Under the framework, new voters were required to submit Form 6 along with the declaration prescribed for the SIR exercise.
The latest controversy arose after questions were raised before the Supreme Court regarding alleged modifications to the online Form 6 process. During the hearing, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana clarified that the Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” the Chief Justice observed during the proceedings. The Court also indicated that it would examine the relevant records to ascertain how and by whom the alleged modification had been made.
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenging, among other things, decisions relating to the SIR process and the alleged changes in Form 6. The Supreme Court has sought the relevant records from the Election Commission.
The ECI, meanwhile, has maintained that Form 6 itself was not changed and that a separate declaration relating to the SIR exercise had only been attached to it.
