ECI Rebuts Rahul Gandhi Over Form 6 Allegations
The Election Commission calls Rahul Gandhi's claims regarding Form 6 modifications misleading, citing Supreme Court approval of the Bihar SIR order.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has hit back at Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, labeling his recent claims regarding the modification of Form 6 as "misleading." The controversy erupted following a social media post by Gandhi, who accused Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar of unilaterally and illegally altering the voter enrollment form.
The Core of the Dispute
The tension centers on Form 6, the critical document used by citizens to enroll as new voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. Rahul Gandhi alleged that the CEC changed the form after the Supreme Court had clarified it had not approved any modified versions. The specific change in question involves a new declaration in the online version of Form 6, which requires applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped during the previous SIR.
This requirement is notable because it was not part of the Form 6 used during SIR exercises in other states, leading to allegations of unilateral decision-making.
ECI's Defense and Supreme Court Context
In a sharp response, the Election Commission clarified that the Special Intensive Revision order for Bihar, issued on June 24, 2025, was not a solo act but was passed with the unanimous approval of the entire Commission. The ECI further emphasized that the Supreme Court of India upheld this order in its judgment dated May 27, 2026.
The Commission highlighted its own previous communications, noting:
- The order for SIR in Bihar was a collective Commission decision.
- The declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR process has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Stance
While the ECI maintains that the process is legally sound, the judiciary has expressed a need for scrutiny. During a hearing regarding a plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised significant questions. The CJI noted that the court would examine the records to identify exactly who introduced the changes to the form.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified it,”the CJI observed, addressing the ECI's claim that the new declaration had been sanctioned by the apex court.
Legal Implications and Ongoing Challenges
The petitioner in the case is seeking an independent judicial inquiry and the prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and other officials under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The concern raised by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy is that these changes could impact how eligible citizens apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls.
Despite these specific disputes over the form's content, the Supreme Court had previously ruled in May that the SIR exercise itself—first conducted in Bihar—is constitutional and legally tenable. The court clarified that while the ECI determines eligibility for voter inclusion, it does not have the authority to determine citizenship status, noting that deleting a name from a voter list does not strip an individual of their citizenship.