Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Monday renewed his allegation against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, claiming it was "established beyond doubt" that the CEC had changed Form 6 "illegally and unilaterally."
In a post on X, Gandhi said, "It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally. This is just one more proof of him abusing his position to help the BJP. He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable." He also shared a picture of an earlier Election Commission of India (ECI) press release in support of his allegation.
Gandhi's remarks came after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, which is used to enrol new voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation while hearing a plea seeking the suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
"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," CJI Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
The issue centres on a declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise. In a press statement issued on September 26 following a key ECI meeting, the Commission had said, "The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For non-SIR period, the Forms applicable as per Rules (the Registration of Electors Rules 1960) will be used."
CJP activist Ashutosh Ranka also claimed that the ECI had subsequently withdrawn the press release. "Hilarious. ECI has apparently taken down the Sept 26 press release, which claimed that SC had upheld the Form 6 order. Gyanesh has been thrown under the bus. Gyanesh, it's done bro!," he said.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions related to the SIR of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally. The bench said the Election Commission and other respondents would first have to be heard.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, ECI, Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
“Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…,” the bench observed.
The petition relied on a report alleging that 14 crucial SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought the immediate suspension of the CEC, arguing that the alleged unilateral decisions posed a serious threat to electoral democracy. Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that decisions of the ECI were required to be unanimous or, where the members differed, taken by majority.
When Singh sought the CEC's suspension, the bench questioned the practical implications of such an order, including its impact on the functioning of the poll panel. “Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked.
Singh responded that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions. The bench, however, said it would first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents.
CJI Kant observed that the statutory framework was mandatory and said, “If there is any violation, we will undo.” Justice Bagchi also questioned whether such relief could be granted without hearing the ECI, noting that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could declare them ultra vires.
The CJI further cautioned that the court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The plea challenges the functioning of the ECI, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism prescribed by law. It contends that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested under Article 324 in the ECI as a body.
The petition cites at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners.
One of the key grievances relates to the alteration of Form 6 during the SIR exercise. Commissioner Joshi had allegedly objected that the form could not be changed to require SIR-linked disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The objection was subsequently endorsed by Sandhu.
The petition also raises concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet/ECINet by statutory field-level authorities. Joshi had proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the authority of the ECI's Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue raised in the plea concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. Sandhu allegedly questioned who had authorised the appeals and under what authority.
The plea further relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, a direction against further substantive alteration of Form 6, and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication.
The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and requiring the Commission's business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners.
