Congress Calls for Supreme Court Suo Moto Action Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over Form 6 Changes

The Indian National Congress on 26 September 2026 urged the Supreme Court to take suo moto cognisance of what it termed illegal and unconstitutional alterations to the voter enrolment process by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar . The party alleges that the changes to Form 6 create hurdles for first‑time, Gen‑Z voters. Key Developments Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh claims the EC altered the online Form 6 in July 2026, adding a question about whether the applicant’s parents or grandparents were listed in the previous SIR roll. The amendment was reportedly made without an official notification or amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 . Congress demands the CEC resign within 48 hours and calls for a Supreme Court probe. The EC maintains that Form 6 itself was not amended; the new requirement was introduced via instructions and a separate declaration, with unanimous approval from all three Election Commissioners. Important Facts The Election Commission of India is empowered by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 . Under this law, any amendment to Form 6 must be effected by the Union Government, not unilaterally by the EC. Two former Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi , had previously raised concerns about the SIR‑related addition. The controversy erupted after the EC ordered special enrolment camps and extensive social‑media publicity to encourage young voters to register, seemingly contradicting the earlier restrictive change. UPSC Relevance Understanding the constitutional limits of the Chief Election Commissioner and the statutory framework governing voter registration is essential for GS‑2 (Polity). The case illustrates the interplay between statutory law ( RPA‑1950 ), rules ( RER‑1960 ), and executive action. It also highlights the role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional propriety through suo moto jurisdiction. Way Forward Potential outcomes include a Supreme Court directive to restore the original Form 6, an audit of the EC’s database, or legislative clarification on the EC’s authority to modify enrolment forms. For aspirants, tracking the judicial pronouncement will provide insight into constitutional checks on administrative agencies and the procedural safeguards for electoral reforms.