New Delhi. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has again targeted Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. He alleged that Gyanesh Kumar made illegal and unilateral changes in Form 6 related to voter registration. Rahul Gandhi said that after the comments of the Supreme Court, this has been established without any doubt.
Read:- CJI exposed EC's lies, said- Changes in Form 6 were not approved, if Election Commission breaks the law then decisions will be stopped.
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. https://t.co/a33eJdPetu
—Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 5, 2026
Read :- Swami Prasad Maurya met Rahul-Priyanka Gandhi, political stir intensifies regarding UP assembly elections.
Rahul Gandhi said on social media platform X on Monday that it has now been established without any doubt that Gyanesh Kumar made illegal and unilateral changes in Form 6. This is another proof of his misuse of position to help BJP. He and all others involved in this criminal attack on democracy will be held accountable. Rahul Gandhi also shared a picture of an old press release of the Election Commission in support of his claim.
Had the Supreme Court approved the revised Form 6?
In fact, this controversy increased further when the Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it has not approved the revised Form 6 to be used for registration of new voters. This form is used to enroll the names of new voters in the electoral roll during Special Intensive Verification (SIR).
Chief Justice Surya Kant said during the hearing that we have not approved any revised Form 6. This is clear. When the record comes out, we would like to see who made the changes in it?
Questions raised on old statement of Election Commission
Read:- Big statement of former Supreme Court judge Justice Nariman on SIR controversy, said- 'Democracy is in danger'
The Election Commission had said in a statement issued on September 26 that the declaration attached with Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Commission had said that in the period other than SIR, the form prescribed under the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960 will be used.
Cockroach Janata Party activist Ashutosh Ranka claimed that the Commission later removed this press release. He commented on social media about the removal of press release from the Commission and also targeted Gyanesh Kumar. However, the Supreme Court refused to give a unilateral interim order to suspend Gyanesh Kumar. The court said that it is necessary to hear the Election Commission and other concerned parties first.
What happened on the demand for suspension of CEC?
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre, Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg and Director General Information Technology Seema Khanna. The bench said that the certified information should come out in the first case. The court said that if necessary, any decision can be canceled later.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, demanded immediate suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner. He claimed that important decisions related to SIR were taken unilaterally despite objections from both the other election commissioners. Citing Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, he said that the decisions of the Election Commission should be unanimous and in case of differences, they should be taken on the basis of majority.
The bench asked who would conduct the elections after suspending the Chief Election Commissioner. On this, Vikas Singh said that both the other Election Commissioners can handle the work of the Commission. The court said it would first have to investigate the allegations after receiving replies from the parties concerned.
Read :- Will Congress-SP fight together in UP Assembly elections 2027? Shivpal Yadav replied
'If there is any violation, we will cancel the decision'
Chief Justice Surya Kant said that it is necessary to follow the statutory system and if it is violated then the court can cancel the decision. Justice Bagchi also questioned how such relief could be given without hearing the Election Commission. Justice Bagchi said that if the records later prove that the decisions were not taken unanimously, the court can declare them outside the authority of law. The Chief Justice also said that the court cannot pass orders merely on the basis of reports published in newspapers.
Claim of objections on 14 decisions
The petition claims that between October 2025 and August 2026, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had lodged objections on the decisions and procedures related to SIR on at least 14 occasions. According to the petition, these objections alleged that certain communications were issued in the name of the Election Commission without its approval. Further, agendas and minutes of the meetings were not shared for a long time and changes were made in the technical machinery related to the voter list without the involvement or approval of both the Election Commissioners.
Objection to changes in Form 6 also
Objections regarding changes in Form 6 have also been mentioned in the petition. It is claimed that Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi had said that before making changes in Form 6 to collect information related to SIR, amendment in the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960 would be necessary. Later, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu also supported this objection. The petition has also raised questions about the centralization of voter list data and the access of statutory level officials to election related technical systems.
Apart from this, the issue of filing an appeal in the name of the Election Commission against the direction of the judicial authorities to include certain voters in West Bengal has also been raised. Sandhu had reportedly questioned who gave permission to file these appeals and who had the authority to do so.
Read:- 'Mona' aka Aradhana Mishra liked Brij Bhushan, but said a big thing about Rahul Gandhi
What was the demand made in the petition?
The petition has sought safeguarding of electoral list data and its records, a ban on any further significant changes in Form 6 and protection from irreversible changes in the data till the hearing of the case is completed. The petitioner has also sought an interim direction to restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of his office and to conduct the work of the Election Commission through two other Election Commissioners.
The final conclusion on the allegations leveled against the Chief Election Commissioner has not yet come. The Supreme Court has sought responses from the parties concerned and said that the allegations will be considered further only after receiving the records.