The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s allegations over changes linked to Form 6, calling his claims misleading. The dispute has intensified after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of the statutory voter-registration form.
Form 6 is used by citizens to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls. The latest controversy centres on an additional declaration appearing with the online form during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The declaration asks applicants to provide details concerning their own or their parents’ inclusion in an earlier intensive revision of electoral rolls. Gandhi had alleged that the Election Commission made changes to Form 6 without proper authority and accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of acting unilaterally.
The ECI rejected the allegations and defended the process behind the Bihar SIR. It said the order initiating the exercise was approved unanimously by the Commission and pointed to the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment upholding the poll panel’s authority to conduct the revision.
The Commission also referred to its earlier clarification on the Form 6 declaration, maintaining that the additional requirement was part of the documentation framework for the SIR exercise. It argued that Gandhi’s interpretation did not accurately represent the legal position.
The Supreme Court, however, made an important clarification during its latest hearing. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the court had not approved any modified Form 6. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, indicated that it would examine official records to determine who authorised the disputed changes.
That distinction has become central to the case. The court has already recognised the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Bihar SIR. The question now before it is whether the specific changes or additional declaration associated with Form 6 were properly authorised and under what legal provision.
The controversy stems from the way the additional declaration appeared alongside Form 6 on the Election Commission’s online platform. The ECI has maintained that it did not alter the statutory Form 6 itself but introduced an additional requirement for the special revision exercise.
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in May had allowed the Election Commission to proceed with the Bihar SIR while recognising its authority to prescribe an appropriate documentation framework. The present proceedings are focused on how that authority was exercised in relation to Form 6.
The issue has triggered a fresh political confrontation. Opposition parties have stepped up criticism of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioned the transparency of the electoral roll revision process. Congress leaders have argued that any additional requirement affecting voter registration must have a clear legal basis.
The BJP has defended the Election Commission and accused Rahul Gandhi and the Congress of misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s observations. The party has maintained that the court has neither struck down Form 6 nor declared the SIR exercise illegal.
The Bihar SIR has already emerged as a major political issue, with Opposition parties expressing concern that the revision could lead to genuine voters being excluded from electoral rolls. The Election Commission has consistently maintained that the exercise is intended to verify voter information and improve the accuracy of electoral rolls.
The Form 6 dispute has now added a legal dimension to those political concerns. The Supreme Court’s decision to seek and examine official records could provide clarity on the origin of the additional declaration and the authority under which it was introduced.
The court’s latest observation should not be interpreted as a finding that the Election Commission illegally changed Form 6. No such final conclusion has been reached. The issue remains under judicial examination.
The immediate focus is therefore on the records before the Supreme Court. They could establish whether the disputed requirement was formally authorised, whether it constituted a modification of the statutory form or was a separate SIR-related declaration, and which authority approved its implementation.
The controversy has placed electoral roll management and voter registration under renewed public scrutiny. At its core, the dispute concerns how changes affecting voters are introduced, documented and communicated.
As the Supreme Court examines the matter, the ECI and Opposition are likely to remain sharply divided over the Bihar SIR. The court’s eventual findings on the Form 6 issue could determine the legal and political direction of the controversy.
