‘Gyanesh lied’: Mahua Moitra targets CEC after SC’s Form 6 clarification

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Monday launched a sharp attack on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, escalating the political and legal controversy surrounding changes to the voter-enrolment process during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

“Gyanesh lied,” Moitra wrote on X, referring to the Chief Election Commissioner. Citing the Election Commission’s September 26 press note, she said the poll panel had claimed that the modified Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court, whereas Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made it clear during Monday’s proceedings that the court had not approved any such modification.

“Chor cannot escape immunity. He needs to go. And Modi needs to go,” Moitra said. Her remarks are political allegations and demands; the Supreme Court has not held that Kumar lied or committed wrongdoing.

What Supreme Court said

The controversy sharpened during Monday’s hearing when senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy raised the issue of alleged alterations to Form 6 before a three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified,” the CJI said during the hearing. The court’s observation directly addressed whether the modified form itself had received its approval, but it did not determine who was responsible for the changes or whether any official had acted unlawfully.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi raising allegations over decisions taken during the SIR process and seeking action against the CEC. The court issued notice and sought the relevant record from the Election Commission, indicating that it would examine how the changes came about.

What EC had said

At the centre of the controversy is an Election Commission press note issued after a meeting of the full Commission on September 26. The note explicitly stated: “The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The Commission also said that for periods outside the SIR, forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would be used. The press note stated that it was issued pursuant to decisions taken at the September 26 meeting and had the approval of the full Commission.

The Election Commission’s position has been that the statutory Form 6 itself was not amended. It has maintained that the disputed declaration was an additional requirement attached to Form 6 specifically for the SIR exercise.

That distinction has now become crucial because the Supreme Court said Monday that it had not approved “any modified Form 6”. The court has indicated that it wants to examine the official record to establish precisely what was changed, when it was changed and by whom.

Why Form 6 matters

Form 6 is the statutory application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll, including first-time voters. The controversy relates to an additional declaration linked to the SIR process that required applicants to furnish information connecting themselves, their parents or grandparents with electoral rolls prepared during an earlier intensive revision.

The Election Commission has argued that additional documentation and declarations can be required during an intensive revision exercise and has cited the Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR in support of its broader authority.

The dispute, however, is narrower than whether the Election Commission can conduct an SIR or verify eligibility. The question now before the court concerns whether the particular declaration attached to Form 6 was approved by the Supreme Court and whether the manner in which it was incorporated complied with the statutory framework.

Reports on the internal deliberations of the Election Commission have said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised concerns about incorporating the additional SIR declaration into the online Form 6. The concerns included whether the statutory form could effectively be altered without following the procedure prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Declaration introduced later

An important point in the dispute is the chronology. The Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment dealt with the Bihar SIR and the Election Commission’s powers to seek additional information and documents during an intensive revision. The particular additional declaration now under scrutiny was introduced subsequently.

This is why the September 26 statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 had been “upheld” by the Supreme Court has attracted scrutiny following the CJI’s clarification.

The Election Commission has continued to distinguish between modifying the statutory Form 6 and attaching a separate declaration for the purposes of an SIR. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether that distinction makes the additional declaration legally valid.

EC later changed system

Following the September 26 meeting of the full Commission, changes were also made to how the additional declaration operated online. By September 30, the SIR-linked declaration had been withdrawn from the online Form 6 in states where the intensive revision had already been completed.

In such states, applicants were again required to fill only the statutory Form 6. The additional declaration, however, continued to be available in states and Union Territories where the SIR process was under way.

The Commission maintained that this reflected its position that the additional declaration applied specifically to SIR and was not a permanent alteration of the statutory voter-registration form.

Opposition steps up attack

Moitra was among several Opposition leaders who seized on Monday’s courtroom remarks to attack the CEC. Congress leaders also alleged that the Supreme Court’s clarification contradicted the Election Commission’s September 26 statement and demanded accountability over the changes.

The political attacks go beyond what the Supreme Court has established at this stage. The bench has neither concluded that Kumar personally modified Form 6 nor found that he misled the court or the public. Instead, it has sought the record and said it wants to determine who made the changes.

That distinction will remain central as the case proceeds. What is established from Monday’s proceedings is that the Supreme Court says it did not approve a modified Form 6; who authorised the disputed changes, whether they amounted to an unlawful modification, and whether responsibility attaches to any individual official remain questions for further examination.