‘Established beyond doubt’: Rahul Gandhi targets Gyanesh Kumar over Form 6 row

New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of changing Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally” after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modification to the voter registration form.

What Rahul Gandhi said

Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, made the allegation on Monday after the Supreme Court questioned the modification of Form 6 in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

“It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally,” Gandhi said in a post on X. He also alleged that the change was part of an attempt to favour the BJP and said those responsible would be held accountable.

The allegation is Gandhi’s political claim and has not been established by a judicial finding. The Supreme Court has sought records to examine who made the modification and whether the decisions were taken in accordance with the law.

What the Supreme Court said

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the court had not approved any modified version of Form 6.

“Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear,” the CJI said, adding that the court wanted to examine the records to determine who had modified the form.

The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre on petitions challenging the manner in which certain decisions were allegedly taken within the poll panel.

However, the court did not pass an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar. It indicated that it would await the responses and relevant records before examining the allegations.

What is the Form 6 controversy?

Form 6 is used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time.

The controversy centres on an additional declaration linked to the SIR exercise. The declaration required applicants to provide information linking themselves, their parents or grandparents to earlier electoral rolls.

The Election Commission has maintained that Form 6 itself was not modified and that the additional SIR declaration was a separate requirement. In a September statement, the ECI said the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court, while the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would continue to apply during non-SIR periods.

The Supreme Court's latest clarification has put the wording and basis of that claim under renewed scrutiny.

Rahul Gandhi's earlier questions

Gandhi had raised the issue on October 1, questioning who at the Election Commission authorised Tata Consultancy Services to make the change to the online Form 6.

He also asked who at TCS approved the modification and whether anyone at the company had been pressured to implement it.

The questions come amid a wider dispute over whether decisions connected with SIR and electoral-roll processes were taken collectively by the three-member Election Commission.

Congress steps up attack

Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh also criticised the CEC following Monday's Supreme Court proceedings.

Ramesh alleged that the CEC had deliberately modified Form 6 and claimed that the change could affect young voters. These are allegations made by the Congress and are not findings of the Supreme Court.

The Congress has been demanding greater scrutiny of the Election Commission's decision-making process and has linked the Form 6 controversy to its broader allegations concerning electoral-roll revisions.

The Supreme Court is expected to examine the records and responses submitted by the Election Commission and the Centre.

The court has indicated that if decisions are ultimately found to be inconsistent with the law, it has the power to annul them. At the same time, it has not, at this stage, accepted the allegations against the CEC as established and has declined to suspend him on an interim basis.

The case could therefore turn on the documentary record: who authorised the additional requirement, how it was implemented online, whether it constituted a modification of the statutory Form 6, and whether the decision was properly taken within the Election Commission.

Why the Form 6 row matters

The dispute is significant because Form 6 is part of the statutory framework governing voter registration, while the SIR is a separate electoral-roll revision exercise.

The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment had held that Form 6 could not necessarily be applied literally to an SIR and recognised a degree of residual authority for the Election Commission to formulate documentation requirements for such an exercise. However, the court also indicated that this authority was not unlimited.

The current proceedings therefore raise two related questions: whether the additional declaration was legally permissible during SIR and whether the online implementation amounted to a modification of Form 6 itself.

The court's request for records is important because it could establish the administrative chain behind the change rather than relying only on competing political claims.