Congress steps up attack on Gyanesh Kumar after SC says "modified Form 6 not approved by us"; ECI calls Rahul Gandhi's allegations "misleading"

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi alleged it was "established beyond doubt" that Kumar had "changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally," and party general secretary KC Venugopal announced a nationwide campaign that will continue until the CEC is removed.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) termed the Congress leader's allegations "misleading," stating that 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".

The ECI highlighted Point 1(iii) of its September 26 press note, which stated that "the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court".https://x.com/ECISVEEP/status/2107103300386730396?s=20

Despite this, INDIA bloc MPs are preparing to march from Parliament House to the ECI office on Tuesday, October 6, as part of its broader campaign against the CEC.

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said MPs of all Opposition parties would march peacefully from Parliament House to the Election Commission at 11 AM, with MPs asked to assemble at Makar Dwar at 10.30 AM. "Till October 8, all INDIA alliance parties will organise pad-yatras at the district level. There will be demonstrations; there will be meetings," he said.

Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh said his party would not join the march. "As for tomorrow's protest, it is being organised by the INDIA alliance, and the Aam Aadmi Party is not part of it. However, we are fighting this battle in our own way," he said.

Taking to 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 shared a picture of an earlier ECI press release to support his allegation.

Addressing a press conference, Venugopal announced a nationwide "Vote Bachao, Desh Bachao" campaign from October 10. "Rahul Gandhi ji, Honourable LOP, has also given clear directions to our leaders that this agitation is not going to end tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. This will be a continuous, aggressive campaign till Gyanesh Kumar is removed and the system has to be corrected," he added.

Criticising the poll body, Venugopal said, "You know the Election Commission has become the 'Cheating Commission of India'. After this much - observation from the Supreme Court and the opposition parties, and two Commissioners' remarks also, he is misleading the people."

Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said the party's three demands were "non-negotiable": the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, the cancellation of SIR and a return to ballot papers. "Across the country, Congress workers and INDIA alliance partners are on the streets over these three issues," he wrote on X.

Hitting back at the opposition, BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra accused Gandhi of misleading the public.

"Rahul Gandhi misled the public on two counts. First, he claimed that Form 6 was illegalspecifically mentioning the Bharatiya Janata Party in this context. However, the Court did not declare Form 6 illegal today. It noted that the petition mentioned a modification to Form 6, so the Court said it would look into the matter," Patra said.

The row has built over recent weeks with multiple protest taking place across the nation against the CEC. It stems from a report by The Indian Express, which said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months regarding decisions and procedures related to the SIR exercise and other electoral matters. The reported objections included issues concerning Form 6, voter deletions and access to electoral-roll databases.

The Election Commission, however, rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to institutional dissent over final decisions. The poll panel said that operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the draft stage were part of its standard administrative and decision-making process.

For context, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation about Form 6 while hearing a plea seeking suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner 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 controversy concerns a new declaration in the online version of Form 6 requiring applicants to state whether they or their parents were mapped in the previous SIR. The requirement was not part of the earlier Form 6 used during SIR exercises in other states.

The Supreme Court meanwhile refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally, saying the Election Commission and others must first be heard.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India, CEC 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, observed the bench.

The petition relied on a report claiming 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 one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate suspension of the CEC, contending 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 ECI decisions were required to be unanimous or, failing that, taken by majority.

As Singh sought suspension of the CEC, the bench questioned the feasibility of suspending the CEC, observing that it could stall 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 said it would have to 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 the court could grant such relief without hearing the ECI, saying 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 challenged the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law. The plea has sought a direction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.

The petition relied on 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.

A key grievance concerns the alteration of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. 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, an objection subsequently endorsed by Sandhu.

The petition also raised 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 ECIs Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers. Another issue 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 filing of the appeals and under what authority. The plea further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commissions business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.

Among the interim reliefs sought were 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 Commissions business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners. (ANI)