The ECI refuted Rahul Gandhi's 'misleading' allegations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over Form 6 changes. The poll body said the order for SIR in Bihar had unanimous approval and was upheld by the Supreme Court, a point the court later clarified.

ECI Refutes Rahul Gandhi's Allegations

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday termed Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's allegations against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar as "misleading".

Responding to Rahul Gandhi's 'X' post, which cited an earlier ECI press release, the Election Commission maintained that the "order for SIR in Bihar issued on 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. This order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026".

Rahul Gandhi had earlier alleged that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 "illegally and unilaterally" after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6. Form 6 is used for enrolling new voters in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The ECI highlighted Point 1(iii) of its September 26 press note, which stated that "the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court". Fact Check ❌The statement made in this post is misleading ✅1) The order for SIR in Bihar issued on 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. This order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026 ✅2) In its Press Note No. 120 dated 26 September 2026, in Point 1(iii), ECI has stated that, "The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." #ECIFactCheck — Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) October 5, 2026

Supreme Court to Examine Form 6 Changes

The ECI’s statement did not directly address the specific allegation regarding Form 6 modification. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, and V Mohana said the court would examine the record to ascertain who had introduced the changes after the Election Commission claimed last week that the new declaration attached to the online Form 6 had been approved by the apex court.

“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.

Details of the Controversy

The clarification came while hearing a plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials over alleged unilateral decisions concerning the SIR exercise.

The controversy concerns a new declaration in the online version of Form 6 requiring applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. The requirement was not part of the earlier Form 6 used during SIR exercises in other states.

The petitioner has sought an independent judicial inquiry into the alleged decisions and initiation of prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the petitioner and raised concerns over changes made to Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls. The bench issued notice and tagged the plea with a similar matter challenging the Election Commission’s decisions.

Previous SC Ruling on SIR

In May, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) SIR exercise, which was first undertaken in Bihar, holding that the exercise is constitutional, legally tenable and cannot be struck down merely because it differs from the ordinary process of voter-roll revision.

The apex court further clarified that the ECI's powers in the process remain limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls and do not extend to ascertaining citizenship status. It held that the deletion of a person's name from the voter list does not divest that individual of citizenship, since citizenship can only be determined by the competent authority under law. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)