‘Beyond doubt Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally, unilaterally’: Rahul

• Rahul Gandhi alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6, saying those responsible would be held accountable.

• His remarks came after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 and sought records to establish who made the change.

• Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also accused the CEC of deliberately modifying the form, while the ECI has maintained that the statutory Form 6 was not changed.

Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Monday, 5 October said it was now established beyond doubt that chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 "illegally and unilaterally", asserting that the CEC and everyone else involved in what he described as a "criminal assault on democracy" would be held accountable.

Gandhi’s remarks came after the Supreme Court clarified during a hearing that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 being used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states. The court said it wanted to see the records to establish who had modified the form.

Form 6 is the application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time.

Gandhi also shared on X a screenshot of an ECI statement issued on 26 September, which 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.'

In his post, 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."

Congress general-secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh also hit out at the CEC, alleging that he had lied over the Form 6 issue. "Form 6 was deliberately modified by the CEC himself to delete Gen Z voters of whom the PM is simply terrified," Ramesh said on X.

The allegations come against the backdrop of a controversy over an additional declaration being added to the online version of Form 6 on the ECI’s ECINet portal. The ECI has maintained that the statutory Form 6 itself was not changed and that additional information was sought through an addendum. The disputed declaration has subsequently been removed from the online form in states where the SIR process has been completed.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the ECI and the Centre on pleas alleging that the poll body had taken several decisions without the approval of the other two election commissioners. The court said it would examine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with the law and made it clear that any decision found to be unlawful could subsequently be annulled.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, however, refused to pass an interim order restraining Gyanesh Kumar from taking decisions until the final disposal of the petitions.

The bench also indicated that it could examine the immunity granted to the CEC and election commissioners under the law, including protection that extends beyond their tenure. "We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the court," the bench said.

The court also questioned the statutory protection given to the CEC, observing that the immunity was something "even judges don't have". 

On the Form 6 controversy, the bench was categorical: "Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it."

The court's remarks came while hearing petitions challenging the functioning of the ECI and seeking action against Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that several decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken without the involvement or approval of the other two election commissioners.

The petitioners have also challenged alleged changes to Form 6 on the ECINet/ERONet portal, including additional requirements relating to ancestry and declarations concerning the previous SIR. The Supreme Court has directed that the Form 6 matter be tagged with the broader plea challenging the ECI's decision-making process.

Gandhi had also raised the Form 6 issue in an X post on 1 October, alleging that the online form had been changed "illegally" and questioning the role of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), which provides technology services to the ECI.

"The online Form 6 was changed illegally -- as the EC's own Commissioners have recorded. Who at the ECI ordered Tata Consultancy Services to make that change?" Gandhi had said. "Who at TCS signed off on it? And were they pressured into doing it?"

The Supreme Court's intervention has now put the focus squarely on the records behind the modification, with the bench indicating that it wants to establish who authorised the change and whether the ECI followed the statutory procedure.

With PTI inputs