The ongoing dispute between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and the Election Commission regarding SIR has now reached the issue of Form 6. Rahul Gandhi alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar made illegal and unilateral changes in Form 6 and used his position to benefit the BJP. After his claim, the Election Commission issued a fact check on social media and termed the statement as 'misleading'. The Commission said that the order of June 24, 2025 to SIR in Bihar was issued with the unanimous approval of the entire Commission and this order was upheld in the Supreme Court's decision of May 27, 2026.

On the other hand, in the recent hearing of the Supreme Court, it was made clear that the court had not approved any amendment in Form 6. This difference has now become the most important part of the entire controversy.

Rahul Gandhi raised questions on which change?

Rahul Gandhi made serious allegations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar through a social media post on October 5. He said the changes in Form 6 were allegedly made illegally and unilaterally. Describing it as a serious matter to the democratic process, Rahul talked about fixing the responsibility. His statement came after the discussion regarding Form 6 in the Supreme Court, where the court had refused to give its approval to the revised format.

How did the Election Commission respond to the allegations?

The Election Commission directly termed Rahul Gandhi's post as 'misleading'. According to the Commission, the order issued on June 24, 2025 for SIR in Bihar came with the unanimous approval of the entire Commission. The Commission also said that the Supreme Court had upheld this order in its judgment dated May 27, 2026. The Commission also referred to its press note dated September 26, 2026, which mentioned the declaration form to be attached with Form 6 during SIR.

Original dispute form and additional declaration

An important difference in the case is that the Election Commission says that the original Form 6 was not changed, but a separate declaration was appended to it during the SIR. This declaration form sought additional information from the applicant regarding the SIR. On the other hand, during the hearing of the Supreme Court, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that the court had not approved any amendment made in Form 6 and it would be clarified by looking at the records as to who made the changes.

Why did the controversy increase due to the Supreme Court's comments?

The Supreme Court's comment has given a new legal dimension to the entire matter. The court made it clear that there was no such approval before it, on the basis of which the revised format of Form 6 could be considered as approved by it. After this, Rahul Gandhi repeated his allegations against the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner. However, the Election Commission in its fact check is citing the Bihar SIR order and the Supreme Court's decision regarding it. This difference between the claims of both the sides currently remains the center of controversy.

Congress movement also continues regarding SIR

The Form 6 controversy has come to light at a time when Congress is intensifying its political campaign against SIR. Campaigns and demonstrations have been announced by the party across the country. Congress alleges that voters' rights may be affected due to SIR, while the Election Commission is defending its process and decisions. Along with political conflict, legal debate is also going on on this issue.

The role of court and commission will be important in future

Now the further legal process will be important in this entire dispute. The Supreme Court is examining the records and the process, while the Election Commission is justifying its decisions on the basis of rules and prior orders. Form 6 is an application to inclusion of name of a new voter in the voter list, hence any change to it can directly impact the electoral process. At present, between Rahul Gandhi's allegations and the Election Commission's fact check, the final picture will become more clear only after further judicial action and examination of official records.