The Election Commission of India has described as “misleading” allegations made by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar illegally and unilaterally altered Form 6 during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
In a post on Monday, the Commission responded to Gandhi’s claims, which referred to an earlier official statement about the declaration attached to Form 6. It stated that the order launching the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar on June 24, 2025, was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. That order was upheld by a Supreme Court judgment dated May 27, 2026.
The poll body also pointed to its September 26 press note, which noted that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the Special Intensive Revision had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Commission’s response, however, did not directly address the core allegation of whether the specific modified version of the online Form 6 currently in use was introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner without proper approval. That question was raised during Supreme Court proceedings on Monday.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said it would examine the official record to determine who had introduced the changes. The Chief Justice observed that any modified Form 6 had not been approved by the court and that the bench would look into who had made the modifications once the records were produced.
The observations came while the court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner and other officials over alleged unilateral decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision exercise.
Form 6 is the application used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls for the first time. The dispute centres on a new declaration added to the online version of the form, which requires applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous Special Intensive Revision. This requirement was not part of the Form 6 used in earlier Special Intensive Revision exercises in other states.