New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has forcefully countered allegations made by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, terming his claim that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar “changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally” as misleading.
The row revolves around a new declaration introduced with Form 6—the statutory form used for enrolling new voters—during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. In a recent post on the social media platform X, Gandhi shared a screenshot of the Election Commission’s September 26 press note, asserting that it was “now established beyond doubt” that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had altered the form illegally. Gandhi further alleged that this was proof of the CEC abusing his position to aid the ruling BJP and stated that those involved in this “criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable.”
Responding swiftly via a fact-check post on X, the ECI firmly rejected these assertions. The poll body maintained that the statutory Form 6 itself had not been changed. It clarified that the contentious declaration—which required applicants to disclose their or their parents’ mapping in previous SIR exercises—was an additional requirement attached to the form.
The Commission emphasized that the order implementing this declaration during the SIR in Bihar, issued on June 24, 2025, was done with the unanimous approval of the entire Commission. Furthermore, the ECI highlighted that this specific order was upheld by a Supreme Court judgment on May 27, 2026. The disputed declaration has since been withdrawn from the online portals in states where the SIR process is complete.
However, the debate intensified following observations made by the Supreme Court on Monday. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stated that the apex court had not approved any modifications to Form 6 itself. “Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it,” the bench remarked, indicating a deeper scrutiny of the administrative process behind the changes.
The ECI also debunked rumours that it had deleted its September 26 press note from its website in light of the controversy, sharing a direct link to prove the document was still publicly accessible. As the Supreme Court awaits the production of official records, the political debate surrounding the integrity of the voter registration process continues to gather momentum.