The Election Commission of India has rejected Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi’s allegation that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had arbitrarily and illegally altered “Form 6,” used for adding names to the voter list, calling it a “misleading act.” However, the Supreme Court, which intervened in the matter, asked, “We did not approve the modified form; who changed it?” As a result, the issue has caused a major stir at the national level.
During the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll, Rahul Gandhi had raised questions about the addition of a new declaration in Form 6. Responding to this, the Election Commission, in a post on its X page, rejected Rahul’s allegation.
It said that the order to begin the special revision exercise in Bihar on June 24, 2025, was issued with the Commission’s "unanimous approval." The Commission also pointed out that this order was upheld in a Supreme Court ruling dated May 27, 2026.
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
However, the Election Commission’s response did not directly address the key allegation made by Rahul Gandhi: whether the modified Form 6 currently in use was introduced without proper approval from the Chief Election Commissioner. This central issue became significant during the hearing in the Supreme Court on Monday.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the case. At that time, the Chief Justice firmly stated, "We have not approved any modified Form 6. Let us be clear about this. When the documents are filed, we want to see who altered them." The court’s remark gains significance as the Election Commission had said last week that the new declaration attached to the online Form 6 had received the Supreme Court’s approval.
The court made this observation while hearing the petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking legal action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials, alleging that they had taken arbitrary decisions regarding special revision work.

The central point of this controversy is the addition of a new declaration in the online version of Form 6, which is used to add a name to the voter list for the first time. Under the new rule, the applicant or their parent must provide information on whether they were counted in the previous special revision exercise. It is noteworthy that this condition was not included in the earlier forms used in other states. Following the Election Commission’s denial and the Supreme Court’s direct questions, the debate over the transparency of electoral procedures has heated up again.