New Delhi: BJP national spokesperson and Lok Sabha MP Sambit Patra on Monday accused Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi of misleading the public over the Supreme Court’s observations on Form 6 and the Election Commission’s decision on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
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
Speaking to ANI, Patra said Gandhi had made misleading claims on two issues — the status of Form 6 and whether the Election Commission’s decision to conduct the SIR in Bihar was unanimous.
Patra said the Supreme Court had not declared Form 6 illegal, but had said it would examine a petition alleging that the form had been modified.
“Rahul Gandhi misled the public on two counts. First, he claimed that Form 6 was illegal — specifically 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 Election Commission also rejected Gandhi’s claim that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had “changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally”.
In a post on X, Gandhi had alleged that it was now established that Kumar had changed Form 6 to benefit the BJP and said those involved would be held accountable.
Responding to the claim, the EC issued a “fact check”, calling Gandhi’s statement “misleading”.
The poll body said the order for the SIR in Bihar was issued on June 24, 2025, with the “unanimous approval” of the Commission and was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment of May 27, 2026.
The EC said its September 25 press note had also stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Form 6 is used by people seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls. The declaration, which sought details of applicants’ parents during the Bihar SIR, was subsequently withdrawn from the EC’s online portals in states where the SIR was not being conducted.
The Supreme Court, however, on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modification to Form 6 being used by the EC during the SIR.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, “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 online version of Form 6 and the accompanying declaration had also required a one-time password for both documents, rather than separate OTPs, prompting questions over whether the declaration was an integral part of the form.
Patra maintained that the EC had already clarified that there was no change to Form 6 and that the declaration attached to it had been upheld by the Supreme Court. He said any question over a modification would become clear once the relevant records were produced before the court.
On Gandhi’s second claim, Patra said the decision to conduct the Bihar SIR was unanimous, citing the EC’s June 24, 2025 order and its subsequent fact-check.
He also referred to a photograph of the three Election Commissioners appearing together at a press conference when the order was issued, saying it showed that the Commission had acted collectively.
Patra compared Gandhi’s claims with the Congress leader’s earlier statements on the Rafale issue and said there would be “consequences for lying”.
He alleged that Gandhi’s statements on Form 6 and the SIR decision were aimed at misleading the public and creating confusion over the electoral-roll revision process.
Separately, the EC rejected claims that it had withdrawn its September 26 press note from its website and shared a link to the document, saying it remained available.
The Form 6 dispute is now before the Supreme Court, which has said it will examine the records to determine whether any modification was made and, if so, who made it.
(With agency inputs from ANI and PTI)
