ECI Calls Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Illegal Form 6 Change’ Claim Misleading
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process after Rahul Gandhi accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of changing Form 6 illegally and unilaterally to benefit the BJP.
In its September 26, 2026, press note, the Commission stated that the Bihar SIR order, issued on June 24, 2025, had received unanimous approval from the Commission and was upheld by the Supreme Court in its May 27, 2026, judgment.
The ECI also maintained that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Court, adding that the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would continue to apply outside the SIR process.
The Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment upheld the broader Bihar SIR exercise, recognising the ECI’s authority to conduct intensive revisions under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Court also recognised the Commission’s power to devise an appropriate documentation framework, subject to statutory limits.
Following the Supreme Court’s observations on October 5, 2026, Rahul Gandhi claimed that it was “established beyond doubt” that Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally to help the BJP.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant orally clarified on October 5 that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified Form 6. He indicated that the Court wanted to examine the records to establish who had made the changes. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also clarified the distinction between the earlier framework considered by the Court and the subsequent modification.
Form 6 is the prescribed application used by eligible citizens seeking their first inclusion in electoral rolls. It is governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
During the SIR exercise, the ECI introduced an additional declaration in the online application process. The declaration reportedly asked applicants whether they or their parents had been included in a previous SIR electoral roll.
The controversy centres on whether the Commission could introduce this additional requirement through its administrative framework or whether a formal amendment to the existing rules was necessary.
Reports also alleged that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to the changes, questioning their legality and authorisation.
The ECI has maintained that the statutory Form 6 itself was not amended and that the additional declaration was specific to the SIR process. The Commission’s position is that the prescribed form and an SIR-specific declaration are distinct.
The Supreme Court’s earlier judgment recognised the ECI’s authority to conduct intensive electoral roll revisions and establish an appropriate documentation framework within the law. Whether that authority covers the specific later modification remains a question for the Court to examine.
The ECI labelled Rahul Gandhi’s post on X as misleading, reiterating that the Bihar SIR order had received unanimous approval and was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Commission’s reference to the May 27 judgment is supported insofar as the Court upheld the broader Bihar SIR exercise. However, the later declaration has become the subject of separate scrutiny.
The October 5 observations mean that the earlier judgment should not be interpreted as a conclusive ruling on every subsequent modification to the online application process.
A separate controversy emerged after Ashutosh Ranka of the Cockroach Janta Party claimed that the ECI’s September 26, 2026, press note was no longer available on its website.
The Press Information Bureau (PIB) rejected the claim, stating that the press release remained available in the public domain and had not been taken down by the Commission.
According to the PIB’s clarification, the claim that the press note had been removed was false.
This issue is separate from the dispute over the Form 6 declaration. The continued availability of the press note does not, by itself, settle the legal question surrounding the later modification.
The central questions before the Court concern the authority under which the additional declaration was introduced, the distinction between the statutory Form 6 and the SIR-specific attachment, and the records showing who authorised the change.
The ECI maintains that the statutory form was not amended and that its broader SIR framework falls within its legal powers. Opposition leaders and petitioners have challenged the procedure and alleged unilateral action.
The Supreme Court has upheld the broader Bihar SIR exercise. It has also clarified that it did not approve the later modified Form 6. However, it has not delivered a final ruling establishing that the disputed modification was illegal or that the CEC acted unilaterally.
