ECI took down September 26 press release after SC remarks? PIB factchecks CJP's Ashutosh Ranka's claim on form 6

A social media claim that the Election Commission of India (ECI) removed its September 26 press note after the Supreme Court questioned changes linked to Form 6 has been rejected by the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check unit. The PIB said the press note remains available on the ECI website and described the claim as false.

The claim was made by Ashutosh Ranka of the Cockroach Janta Party on X after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on October 5 that the Supreme Court had not approved any modification to Form 6. Ranka argued that the court’s observation contradicted the ECI’s September 26 statement and claimed that the press note had subsequently been taken down.

The PIB Fact Check unit, however, said the September 26 press note had not been removed and shared the official ECI link to the document. The ECI also separately rejected claims that the note had been withdrawn, pointing to the fact that it was still accessible online.

What did the ECI say in its September 26 press note?

The September 26 press note recorded decisions taken at a meeting of the full Election Commission. Among other points, it said that “the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” The note also said that forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would be used during periods when the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was not under way.

The same document addressed other SIR-related matters, including procedures for Booth Level Officers to collect documents from voters who had received notices, assistance for people in vulnerable categories and an extension of the claims and objections deadline in Delhi to October 30, 2026. The ECI said the press note had the approval of the full Commission.

Why did the Form 6 controversy emerge?

Form 6 is the application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. During the SIR process, an additional declaration was attached to the form, asking applicants questions linked to previous electoral rolls and the status of their parents or grandparents in those rolls.

The issue became contentious after allegations that the changes had been introduced without the required legal or institutional approval.

On October 5, while hearing a petition concerning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged changes to Form 6, a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant said the court had not approved any modification to the form. The bench also said it wanted to examine the records to determine who had made the changes.

The Supreme Court’s observation followed the ECI’s September 26 statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the court. The two developments have since become part of the wider dispute over how the changes to the voter-enrolment process were introduced.

ECI press note remains available

Despite the controversy over what the Supreme Court had or had not approved, the separate claim that the September 26 ECI press note was removed from the website is not supported by the available official record.

The PIB Fact Check unit said the document was still available, and the ECI shared its link to demonstrate that it remained accessible. Reports on the fact-check also said the claim about the removal of the press note was therefore incorrect.