Factcheck: Rahul Gandhi’s Form 6 claims are misleading, but questions over modified form remain

Claim: The Election Commission’s use of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision could facilitate the addition of ineligible voters, and the Bihar SIR process was unilaterally ordered by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Verdict: Misleading

What is the claim?

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has raised questions over the use of Form 6, the application used by eligible citizens to seek inclusion in the electoral roll. His allegations have come amid the wider political dispute over electoral rolls and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. Gandhi and the Congress have questioned how Form 6 applications are processed and whether the process could allow ineligible voters to be added to electoral rolls.

What did we find?

The Election Commission of India disputed Gandhi’s interpretation of the process and issued a fact check addressing two specific points. First, the EC said the order launching the Bihar SIR on June 24, 2025, was not a unilateral decision by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. According to the commission, the order was issued with the unanimous approval of the Election Commission. The EC further said the order was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 27, 2026. Second, the EC said the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court, citing its September 26, 2026, press note.

What does Form 6 actually do?

Form 6 is the prescribed application for an eligible person who wants to have their name included in the electoral roll and is not already registered as a voter. However, submitting Form 6 does not automatically result in enrolment. According to the report, applications are subject to the prescribed verification process, after which the electoral registration officer decides whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore, the mere filing of Form 6 cannot by itself be treated as proof that an ineligible person has been added to the electoral roll.

What did the Supreme Court say about the modified Form 6?

The EC’s response did not resolve every question surrounding the online version of Form 6. The commission did not directly state that Gyanesh Kumar had not changed Form 6, nor did it explain who introduced the modified online version. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, made clear that it had not approved any modified Form 6 and asked the Election Commission to produce the relevant record to establish who had modified it. This means that while the EC has defended the SIR order and the declaration attached to Form 6, questions surrounding the modified online form remained under judicial consideration at the time of the report.

Why does Form 6 matter in the SIR debate?

Form 6 has become an important part of the debate surrounding the revision of electoral rolls. The form is intended to provide a mechanism for eligible citizens whose names are missing from the electoral roll to seek enrolment. At the same time, the dispute has focused on how applications are verified and whether existing safeguards are sufficient to prevent wrongful additions. The disagreement, therefore, is not simply about the existence or purpose of Form 6. It also concerns the implementation of the enrolment process and the safeguards used to verify applicants.

Conclusion

The Election Commission has rejected Rahul Gandhi’s interpretation that the Bihar SIR order was a unilateral decision by the Chief Election Commissioner, stating that the order received the unanimous approval of the commission. The EC has also said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court separately clarified that it had not approved any modified Form 6 and sought information from the Election Commission about who introduced the modification. Thus, while the EC’s response addresses specific allegations made by Gandhi, it does not establish that every question surrounding the modified online Form 6 has been settled.

Final Verdict

Misleading. The Election Commission’s claim that the Bihar SIR order was unanimously approved by the commission and that the Form 6 declaration was upheld by the Supreme Court is supported by the information cited in the report. However, the Supreme Court has separately questioned the modified online Form 6 and asked who introduced the changes. Therefore, presenting the entire Form 6 controversy as either fully established or completely settled would be misleading.