'Beyond Doubt That Gyanesh Kumar Changed Form 6 Illegally': Rahul Gandhi Slams CEC After SC's Clarification

Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Monday accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of changing Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally” to benefit the BJP, after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved modifications to the voter registration form.

In a post on X, Gandhi said Kumar and others involved in what he described as an “assault on democracy” would be held accountable.

“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 wrote.

“He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable,” Gandhi added.

Priyanka Gandhi Says Protests Will Continue

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra alleged that voter deletions violated constitutional principles and said the party would continue its agitation.

“It's very clear that these deletions that have taken place are against everything our Constitution and our electoral process stand for. It's extremely clear. We are protesting against that. The public has now realised that the elections are being manipulated, and we will continue our protest,” she said in Delhi.

Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh separately accused Kumar of having “lied” about the modification.

“Form 6 was deliberately modified by the CEC himself to delete Gen Z voters of whom the PM is simply terrified,” Ramesh alleged on X.

Form 6 allows eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls. Gandhi shared a screenshot of the Election Commission’s September 26 statement, which said the declaration attached to the form during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) had been “upheld” by the Supreme Court. The statement said forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used outside SIR periods.

BJP Cites Independent Institutions

The BJP, meanwhile, said the Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Commission and the Centre on allegations against Kumar showed that institutions were “functioning independently”.

Speaking at the party headquarters in Delhi, BJP MP and spokesperson Sambit Patra rejected claims of an atmosphere of “fear and dictatorship”.

“The country is moving in a very democratic way. Everyone is speaking their heart out. All procedures and systems are being followed. Where else could there be a better model of democracy? I feel India is celebrating democracy,” he said.

Patra also questioned those who had described the government as authoritarian.

“However, today I wish to pose a question to those who used to claim that India is operating under a ‘Hitler regime’, and that there is a dictatorship or autocracy in the country today.”

He described the two Election Commissioners expressing differing views on the SIR as a “healthy sign of democracy”.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses

The Supreme Court gave the EC and the Centre a week to respond to a petition alleging that Kumar took decisions without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to pass an interim order restraining Kumar from functioning.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, sought Kumar’s immediate suspension or, alternatively, a direction requiring unanimous decisions until the next hearing. He cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for majority decisions when members disagree.

The bench said it needed to establish the facts before intervening.

“You have come here on the basis of a news report, which can be 100% correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass any order on the basis of a newspaper report,” it said.

The court said Commission decisions must be unanimous or supported by a majority and indicated that it could restrain decisions found to breach the statutory framework.