Sambit Patra rebuts Rahul Gandhi's Form 6 claims, says SC didn't call it illegal
Synopsis
BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra accused Rahul Gandhi of misreading a Supreme Court observation as a finding that Form 6 was illegally altered — a distinction with major implications for the election commission's credibility and the ongoing SIR controversy. The court has not yet ruled on who made the changes, making Gandhi's 'established beyond doubt' claim politically charged but legally premature.
Key Takeaways
BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra on 5 October 2026 rejected Rahul Gandhi's claim that the Supreme Court had declared Form 6 illegal.
Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly stated the court had not approved any modified Form 6 and wanted to examine the official record — not a finding of illegality, Patra argued.
Rahul Gandhi alleged on X that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6 to benefit the BJP .
Patra said the Bihar SIR order of 24 June 2025 was passed unanimously by all three Election Commissioners , not unilaterally.
The Election Commission's September 26 press release has not been withdrawn, according to Patra, who called reports to the contrary false.
The Supreme Court is yet to reach a final conclusion on who made the disputed changes to Form 6.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national spokesperson Sambit Patra on Monday, 5 October 2026, hit back at Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over allegations concerning Form 6, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, Patra accused Gandhi of misrepresenting the Supreme Court's observations to suggest the court had declared Form 6 illegal — a characterisation the BJP flatly rejected.
What Rahul Gandhi Alleged
Gandhi, in a post on X, alleged that Supreme Court proceedings had established that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6. He described the alleged modification as evidence of the CEC's position being misused to benefit the BJP, and asserted that those responsible would have to be held accountable. Gandhi also claimed the development represented an attack on democracy.
BJP's Counter: What the SC Actually Said
Patra strongly rejected Gandhi's interpretation, stating that the Supreme Court had neither declared Form 6 illegal nor set it aside. According to Patra, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing that the court had not approved any modified Form 6 and that the official record would need to be examined to determine who had made the changes. Patra argued this was a procedural observation, not a judicial finding of illegality.
The BJP spokesperson also referenced the Election Commission's September 26 press release, which reportedly stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR exercise had been upheld by the Supreme Court. He maintained that Gandhi was conflating a procedural query with a conclusive ruling, thereby creating confusion about the court's actual stance.
SIR Decision Was Unanimous, BJP Argues
Patra disputed the allegation that the Bihar SIR order, issued on 24 June 2025, was taken unilaterally. He said the order was approved unanimously by all three Election Commissioners, citing the Election Commission's own fact-check response as corroboration. He accused Gandhi of presenting a collective institutional decision as the unilateral action of a single official.
Patra additionally cited the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment while explaining the Election Commission's documentation position on the SIR exercise, arguing that the judgment did not support Gandhi's reading of events.
Patra Invokes Rafale Precedent
In a pointed historical comparison, Patra recalled Gandhi's earlier criticism of the Supreme Court in connection with the Rafale fighter-jet controversy. He alleged that Gandhi had previously made incorrect claims about what the Supreme Court had said in that case and had subsequently been forced to clarify his remarks before the court. Patra argued that a similar pattern of politically motivated misreading of judicial proceedings was repeating itself in the Form 6 dispute.
Press Release Withdrawal Claim Rejected
Patra also addressed reports that the Election Commission had withdrawn its September 26 communication on Form 6 and SIR following the Supreme Court hearing. He categorically denied this, saying the press release remained part of the Commission's public record and that a formal fact-check had been issued on the matter. He characterised reports of a withdrawal as false and accused Gandhi of exploiting ambiguity to undermine public confidence in constitutional institutions.
With the Supreme Court yet to reach a final conclusion on who made the disputed changes to Form 6, the political and legal battle over electoral roll revision is likely to intensify in the weeks ahead.
Point of View
With both sides racing to define what the Supreme Court 'really said' before a final ruling exists. Gandhi's 'established beyond doubt' phrasing is legally untenable — the court explicitly said it needed to examine the record — but the political damage to the Election Commission's image may precede any judicial verdict. Patra's Rafale comparison is telling: it signals the BJP's intent to tag Gandhi with a pattern of misrepresenting court proceedings. The deeper accountability question — who did modify Form 6, and under what authority — remains unanswered, and that gap is what both sides are exploiting.
NationPress
6 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Form 6 controversy between the BJP and Congress?
The dispute centres on whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar illegally and unilaterally modified Form 6 — the form used for voter registration during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged the change benefited the BJP; the BJP says no such finding has been made by any court.
Did the Supreme Court declare Form 6 illegal?
No. According to BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated during the hearing that the court had not approved any modified Form 6 and wanted to examine the official record to determine who made the changes. Patra argued this is a procedural observation, not a judicial declaration of illegality.
What did Rahul Gandhi say about the Supreme Court hearing?
Gandhi posted on X that the Supreme Court hearing had established 'without any doubt' that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6, and that those responsible would have to be held accountable. The BJP rejected this characterisation as a misrepresentation of the court's observations.
Was the Bihar SIR order taken unilaterally by the CEC?
The BJP says no. Sambit Patra stated that the Bihar SIR order, issued on 24 June 2025, was approved unanimously by all three Election Commissioners, and that the Election Commission itself confirmed this in its fact-check response.
Has the Election Commission withdrawn its September 26 press release on Form 6?
No, according to Patra. He said the September 26 communication remains part of the Election Commission's public record and that reports of its withdrawal following the Supreme Court hearing are false. The Commission also issued a formal fact-check on the matter.
