Probably falseTrick: Accuses by asking

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicted the ECI, stating it never approved any modification to Form 6. The court declined to suspend the CEC and issued notices to investigate the changes.

Reliable sources say otherwise. Reel by @indiainaminute · checked 11 Oct 2026 · Politics

The Reel we checked

@indiainaminute

Though the SC said that they did not approve modification in Form 6, it also doesn’t prove that Form 6 was modified. ECI made clear that there was simply an…

Watch the Reel on Instagram ↗

🚩 What's concerning

Doesn't add up

The Election Commission claimed the Supreme Court upheld its Form 6 declaration, but the Chief Justice of India explicitly stated the court had not approved any modification to Form 6.

"The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." Hindustan Times, 2026-10-06

"Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear" India Today, 2026-10-05

Election Commission of India response: "the order for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, issued on June 24, 2025, had received the unanimous approval of the Commission and was subsequently upheld by the Supreme C" Times of India

The trick: Accuses by asking

It asks a loaded question to plant a claim it never has to prove (known as accusing by question).

"Who actually benefits from manufacturing this panic and trying to undermine the credibility of our election system?"

Questioning who benefits from an accusation does not prove the accusation itself is fabricated or false.

How this trick works and how to answer it →

Published fact-check

Alt News rated this video true. Read it →

What we checked

The Election Commission of India did not modify Form 6 itself, but only added an additional declaration form in Annexure D.The Wire

✓

The Supreme Court of India explicitly refused to pass an interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.The Wire + 1 more

✓

The Supreme Court of India stated that it did not approve any modifications to Form 6 for voter registration.India Today + 1 more

✓

In a May 27, 2026 judgment, the court ruled that the Election Commission of India has residual authority to require additional documentation.Hindustan Times

🧩 Connected

The same claim was checked in another Reel (@nationwithvenkatesh, 2026-10-06): "The Supreme Court of India refused to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, stating that…", found true (see it)

What each side says

Election Commission of India (ECI)The ECI maintains that Form 6 was not altered and that the declaration was an additional requirement issued under its residual authority. India Today

How it plays you

It wants you to think: "Critics are fabricating a fake controversy about voter registration forms to deliberately damage public trust in Indian democracy."

Questioning a critic's motives does not prove their accusation is false. The Supreme Court itself raised concerns, stating it wanted to examine the records to see exactly who modified the form.

Black and white framing: "Was Form Six changed? No. Was Form Six modified? No.". It reduces a complex legal dispute over whether adding mandatory online declarations violates statutory rules into a simple, misleading 'yes or no' choice.

Does this look wrong?

Check a Reel yourself

Send any Reel to @checkthis.chat on Instagram. You get a reply like this in a minute or two.

Send a Reel