Intikhab Alam, Member of the All India Congress Committee and Advocate, after the Supreme Court’s significant remarks on Special Intensive Revision (SIR), launched a sharp attack on the Election Commission and the central government.

Intikhab Alam said that the clarity that emerged today in the Supreme Court has cast a serious question mark over the Election Commission’s claim that the additional declaration added to Form‑6 was approved by a Supreme Court order. Chief Justice of India Justice Suryakant stated plainly that the revised Form‑6 was not approved by the Supreme Court, and when the record comes to light, the Court wants to see who actually made what modifications.

He said this is not a minor administrative mistake. Adding or removing names from the voter list directly concerns a citizen’s constitutional democratic right. When millions of voters’ names have been removed from the draft list under the SIR process and, in the same process, additional conditions were added to Form‑6 for new voters, it is natural to ask who granted this authority and under what statutory procedure it was given.

Alam said the Election Commission cannot now evade responsibility by claiming that no changes were made to Form‑6, only an additional declaration was added. If a new condition is added to a statutory form that affects a citizen’s right to become a voter or to re‑enter the voter list, it cannot be dismissed as mere wordplay. The Supreme Court itself has now said it will review the entire record of the case.

He said that if the Election Commission truly based its action on a Supreme Court order, it must now clarify before the country which order, the date of the order, and the specific line in which the Supreme Court approved this additional condition in Form‑6. Because after the Chief Justice’s comment today, that claim has come under serious scrutiny.

Intikhab Alam said that in a democracy the Election Commission is not merely a government office but a constitutional guardian of free elections and voters’ rights. If the Supreme Court raises the question of who made changes to Form‑6 and whether the institution had any approval from the Court, it becomes a question of the entire electoral system’s credibility.

He said that the removal of more than 13 crore names from the draft voter list under the banner of SIR is itself a very serious matter. The Election Commission’s claim that these include deceased, relocated, absent or duplicate voters cannot be taken as final truth; every genuine voter should have a simple, fair and transparent opportunity to protect their name and safeguard their citizenship and voting rights.

Alam said that in a democracy governments come and go, but the Election Commission’s constitutional credibility must remain constant. Therefore the central government must also break its silence on this entire dispute and the Election Commission must answer the country as to whose instructions the entire process of removing millions of names in the SIR process, adding an additional condition to Form‑6, and citing the alleged Supreme Court approval was carried out.

He said, “A vote is not a favor from the government. A vote is a democratic right granted to a citizen by the Constitution of India. If even one eligible citizen’s vote is taken away due to administrative process, technical error or arbitrariness, accountability must be established—and when the issue concerns millions of voters, accountability becomes even greater.”

As a member of the All India Congress Committee, I want to make it clear that the Congress will fight with full vigor for the protection of the voting rights of every eligible Indian. The question raised by the Supreme Court today is not just about Form‑6; it is about who will maintain the voter list in India—institutions in accordance with law and the Constitution or arbitrary administrative decisions.

He said that now the country’s eyes are on the record that will be presented before the Supreme Court. The country wants to know—who changed Form‑6, under what authority it was changed, and on what basis the claim of Supreme Court approval for that change was made?