Rahul Gandhi’s FALSE claims got fact checked: ECI rejects “ Gyanesh Kumar ‘Illegally changed’ form 6” claim
Rahul Gandhi’s claim that CEC Gyanesh Kumar “illegally and unilaterally” changed Form 6 has been fact-checked by the Election Commission. The available record does not support his claim that the form was changed to benefit the BJP.
Total Views |
Rahul Gandhi’s claim that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar “illegally and unilaterally” changed Form 6 and did so to help the BJP is not supported by the documents or court record currently available.
(An AI Generated Image using the posts of Rahul Gandhi and the Election Commission)
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision was approved unanimously by the Election Commission and upheld by the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has sought clarification over a disputed declaration attached to Form 6, there is no judicial finding that Gyanesh Kumar illegally altered the form or acted to benefit the BJP.
The Claim
On October 5, Rahul Gandhi claimed that it was now “established beyond doubt” that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had changed Form 6 “illegally and unilaterally”.
Gandhi further alleged that the alleged action was evidence of the CEC “abusing his position to help the BJP” and described it as part of what he called a “criminal assault on our democracy”.
It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally.
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 5, 2026
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/oPwOw12uXd pic.twitter.com/a33eJdPetu
The statement makes several serious allegations, that the form was changed, that the change was illegal, that it was done unilaterally by Gyanesh Kumar and that the purpose was to benefit the BJP.
The available record does not establish any of these allegations.
What the Election Commission record shows
The Election Commission's June 24, 2025 order concerning the Bihar Special Intensive Revision was not an individual decision of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The order was approved by the Commission as a whole. The Election Commission has also pointed out that the Bihar SIR was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court on May 27, 2026.
This directly undercuts the description of the entire exercise as a unilateral action by Gyanesh Kumar.
There is also no finding in the Supreme Court's May 27 judgment that the CEC illegally altered Form 6 or exceeded his authority for the purpose of helping any political party.
What the Supreme Court actually upheld
The Supreme Court's May 27, 2026 judgment upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Bihar SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The Court also recognised that the ordinary Form 6 framework may not apply literally to a special intensive revision and that the Election Commission has residual authority to prescribe a documentation framework suited to such an exercise.
The Court did caution that this authority is not unlimited and must remain within the statutory framework.
The judgment did not find that Gyanesh Kumar had illegally changed Form 6.
Nor did it find that the Election Commission had altered the form to favour the BJP.
Therefore, Gandhi's assertion that the illegality is already “established beyond doubt” does not follow from the judgment he is invoking.
Election Commission clarification
The Election Commission subsequently issued a fact check on September 26.
The press note stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
This is significant because the Commission's position is that the statutory Form 6 itself was not rewritten. Instead, a declaration was attached for the purposes of the special revision.
Fact Check
— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) October 5, 2026
❌The statement made in this post is misleading
✅1) The order for SIR in Bihar issued on 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. This order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026
✅2)… https://t.co/ncDlHP1Dag
The press note also makes clear that ordinary Forms under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would continue to apply outside the SIR process.
Nothing in this document establishes that Gyanesh Kumar personally changed Form 6 in violation of the law.
It does not establish that the CEC acted alone.
And it certainly does not establish Gandhi's allegation that the change was made to help the BJP.
No proof of the ‘BJP Benefit’ allegation
Gandhi's statement goes beyond the technical dispute over Form 6.
He alleges that the alleged change was intended to benefit the BJP.
That is a question of motive, and no evidence cited in the claim establishes such a motive.
Neither the June 2025 SIR order nor the May 2026 Supreme Court judgment contains a finding that Gyanesh Kumar altered electoral documentation to assist the BJP.
There is also no judicial finding that the alleged declaration was introduced as part of a political strategy.
Rahul Gandhi's claim is misleading
The documents currently available do not establish that Gyanesh Kumar “illegally and unilaterally” changed Form 6. The Supreme Court has not made such a finding. Nor has it found that the Election Commission changed the form to benefit the BJP.
The Supreme Court's October 5 observation means that questions remain about the precise nature and origin of a disputed declaration attached to Form 6. But an unresolved question is not proof of the criminal or political wrongdoing alleged by Gandhi.