New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a fact-check rejecting as “misleading” Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi’s allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6, the application used for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls.
The dispute has emerged amid the continuing political and legal controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The issue has also reached the Supreme Court, which on October 5 said that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 and that the official record would have to be examined to determine how the disputed changes came about.
Rahul Gandhi’s allegation
Rahul Gandhi, in a post on social media, alleged that Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally.” He described the alleged change as another indication of misuse of the CEC’s office and alleged that it was intended to benefit the BJP.
The Congress leader’s comments came after the Election Commission issued a September 26 clarification concerning the declaration attached to Form 6 during the SIR process.
Gandhi interpreted the Commission’s clarification as evidence that changes had been made to the voter-registration form without proper authority.
The Election Commission subsequently responded directly to the post, describing the statement as misleading.
What the Election Commission says
In its October 5 fact-check, the ECI said that the SIR order for Bihar was issued on June 24, 2025, with the unanimous approval of the Election Commission.
The poll panel further pointed to the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment, saying that the court had upheld the SIR order.
The Commission also referred to its September 26 press note, which stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
According to the ECI, the disputed document should not be understood as an unauthorized alteration of the statutory Form 6. The Commission has maintained that an additional declaration was attached to Form 6 as part of the SIR process.
Officials have also said that the original Form 6 itself was not changed.
What is Form 6?
Form 6 is an important electoral document used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll as new voters.
The Election Commission’s voter-services portal currently identifies Form 6 as the application for new voter registration. The Commission’s official guidance says an eligible citizen can submit Form 6 to the Electoral Registration Officer or through the online voter-services system.
Because the form is directly connected with the process of adding names to electoral rolls, any alteration to its requirements can have significant implications for voters and election officials.
The controversy in the present case centres not simply on the existence of Form 6, but on an additional declaration associated with the form during the SIR exercise.
Why the Supreme Court’s observation matters
While the Election Commission has rejected Rahul Gandhi’s allegation, the Supreme Court proceedings have introduced an important distinction.
During the October 5 hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the Supreme Court had not approved any modification to Form 6. The court said that once the relevant records were produced, it would examine who had made the changes.
This means the court has not, at this stage, endorsed Rahul Gandhi’s allegation that the CEC personally and illegally changed the form. At the same time, the court’s observation indicates that the precise administrative history of the disputed version of the form remains an issue for examination.
The distinction is significant because the ECI and the Supreme Court are addressing different aspects of the controversy.
The Commission is defending the legality of the SIR order and the declaration attached to Form 6, while the Supreme Court is examining the specific question of how the disputed modification or declaration was introduced and what approval, if any, it received.
Supreme Court had upheld Bihar SIR
The wider SIR controversy also has a judicial background.
In its May 27, 2026 judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms case, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The court held that the exercise was supported by Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It also concluded that the exercise had a legitimate purpose and complied with relevant procedural safeguards.
However, the latest proceedings concerning Form 6 are narrower. The court is examining the particular question of the disputed version of the form and the declaration connected with it.
Declaration attached to Form 6
The controversy intensified because the online version of Form 6 used during the SIR process was associated with an additional declaration.
Reports on the dispute say that applicants were required to provide information concerning whether they or their parents had been mapped in an earlier electoral-roll revision.
Critics questioned the legal basis for adding such a requirement to the voter-registration process.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that the declaration was part of the SIR framework and that the underlying SIR order had received unanimous approval from the Commission.
The issue of Supreme Court approval
One of the most important points in the latest controversy concerns the wording of the Election Commission’s earlier statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been “upheld” by the Supreme Court.
During the October 5 hearing, the Chief Justice clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified Form 6.
The court’s position has therefore created an important legal distinction between the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the Bihar SIR exercise and the separate question of whether the court specifically approved a modified Form 6.
The court is expected to examine the official records to determine the precise sequence of events and the authority under which the disputed version was introduced.
ECI also says declaration was withdrawn in some cases
The controversy has evolved further because the Election Commission subsequently withdrew the additional SIR-related declaration from online voter-registration systems in states where the relevant revision process had been completed.
Reports said the declaration was removed from the online systems in non-SIR states, while the Commission continued to distinguish between the SIR period and the normal voter-registration process.
The Commission has maintained that for periods outside SIR, the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would apply.
Political dispute continues
The Form 6 controversy has become another point of disagreement between the Election Commission and opposition parties over electoral-roll revisions.
Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders have raised broader concerns about electoral-roll management and transparency. The Election Commission has repeatedly defended its procedures and rejected allegations of deliberate manipulation.
The latest exchange illustrates the difference between a political allegation and a question that is still being examined judicially.
The ECI has officially rejected Gandhi’s claim as misleading, while the Supreme Court has made clear that it will examine the official records concerning the disputed Form 6 changes.
What happens next?
The immediate focus is likely to remain on the records that the Supreme Court has asked to examine.
The key questions include how the additional declaration was introduced, what administrative approval it received, how it was connected to Form 6, and whether the procedure followed the applicable electoral rules.
Until the court completes that examination, the competing claims should be kept separate from established facts.
For voters, Form 6 remains the standard application for inclusion of a new elector in the electoral roll. The Election Commission continues to provide the form through its official voter-services platform.
The controversy therefore remains unresolved on the specific question of who authorised the disputed modification or declaration. The Election Commission has rejected Rahul Gandhi’s allegation of an illegal unilateral change, while the Supreme Court has indicated that it will examine the official record before drawing conclusions on that issue.
For now, the Form 6 dispute remains both a political controversy and an ongoing legal examination, with the next developments expected to depend on the records placed before the Supreme Court.
