After the Supreme Court on Monday said it had not approved the changes to Form 6, the statutory application used by citizens to register as voters, leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), including its founder Abhijeet Dipke, raised questions on who approved the changes, criticising Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When record will be produced, we would like to see who has modified,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had said earlier during a hearing.
Dipke sharpens attack
Reacting to the top court's remarks, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke asked how the CEC modified Form 6 if the Supreme Court had not given its approval. “On whose orders did he do it,” Dipke asked as he alleged that Kumar was ‘not acting independently.’
Deep Dive
What changes were allegedly made to Form 6 by Gyanesh Kumar?
Why is the Supreme Court involved in the Form 6 controversy?
How did the Election Commission respond to the objections regarding the modifications in Form 6?
“He was serving his political bosses, even if it meant putting their interests above the rule of law,” Dipke wrote as he dubbed Kumar as a traitor.
{{/usCountry}}“He was serving his political bosses, even if it meant putting their interests above the rule of law,” Dipke wrote as he dubbed Kumar as a traitor.
{{/usCountry}}‘Did the CEC lie to the country’
CJP co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka said that the CJI's remark is “in direct contradiction” to the statement issued by the Election Commission of India on September 26 where it claimed that the Form 6 declarations had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Also read: SC refuses to restrain Gyanesh Kumar, says can't pass order based on news report
“Remember, Form 6 is the one used for new voter registration, where arbitrary declaration had been added unilaterally by Gyanesh,” Ranka wrote, adding that the September 26 press release has been taken down from the ECI website.
“Did the CEC just officially lie to the people of this country?” he wrote.
CJP spokesperson Saurav Das also reacted to the CJI's remarks and said, “The Court that gave legal cover to Gyanu’s SIR process has put its hands up and said that they had nothing to do with Gyanu’s illegal action.”
He said that the Supreme Court had distanced itself from one of ‘Gyanesh Kumar’s illegalities.’
“Chief Justice Surya Kant has said that the court DID NOT approve any changes in Form 6 (the form for registration of new voters). Remember that the other two Election Commissioners had objected to a change in the Form which they said was leading to “harassment” of new voters, especially the Gen Z who were being stopped from becoming registered voters. The Form could only be changed after a change in law and election rules,” Das wrote on X.
Supreme Court's remark on Form 6 change
Chief Justice Surya Kant on Monday said the top court has not given its nod to any modifications on Form 6 and it will be seen during later stages as to who approved the sAny modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When record will be produced, we would like to see who has modified,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said during the hearing.
The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenging alleged changes to the online version of Form 6, including requirements relating to an applicant’s ancestry and declarations concerning the last special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, referred to the manner in which the SIR was conducted in Delhi and alleged that two additional conditions had been introduced into the voter-registration process.
The court's observation came amid a debate over the functioning of the Election Commission and the manner in which decisions concerning the electoral-roll revision exercise were taken.