The ECI did not modify Form 6 for voter registration?

checkthis · automated fact-check · How we check

MisleadingTrick: Mixes up two things

Checked 11 Oct 2026 · Updated 15 Oct 2026

The Reel confuses two different timelines and documents. The Supreme Court upheld a separate declaration document used in Bihar in May, but it explicitly stated it did not approve the later changes integrated directly into the online Form 6 in July. Furthermore, the Reel presents the ECI's claim of unanimous decisions as fact, ignoring that the Supreme Court is currently examining allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner overruled 14 written objections.

Main source: Alt News

Real video, twisted story. Reel by @indiainaminute

▶

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 Supreme Court explicitly stated it had not approved any modification to the form.

"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" The Wire, 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: Mixes up two things

It treats two very different things as the same (known as false equivalence).

"Look, 27 May 2026 के judgement में court ने कहा था कि SIR के लिए ECI के पास एक degree of residual authority है। मतलब वो additional documentation frame कर सकती है given उन documents का SIR से एक rational link हो। तो…"

It uses the Supreme Court's approval of a separate physical annexure in May to justify unauthorized changes made directly to the online application portal in July.

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.All India Radio

✓

The Supreme Court of India stated that it did not approve any modifications to Form 6 for voter registration.Alt News

✓

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

🧩 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 the Reel doesn't tell you

The changes to the online Form 6 were made in July 2026, after the Supreme Court's May judgment, and made the declaration a mandatory step to complete the form.

What each side says

Election Commission of India (ECI)The ECI maintained that Form 6 was not modified and that the attached declaration was an additional requirement upheld by the Supreme Court. India Today

How it plays you

It wants you to think: "Critics of the Election Commission are fabricating a fake controversy to damage public trust in Indian democracy."

Questioning the motives of critics does not prove their allegations are false. The Supreme Court itself is actively examining serious allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner unilaterally overruled 14 written objections from other commissioners.

Insinuation by question: "Who actually benefits from manufacturing this panic and trying to undermine the credibility of our election system?". It diverts attention from the factual dispute over whether the ECI altered a statutory form without authority, redirecting the viewer's focus toward the alleged bad motives of the critics.
Conflating timelines and documents: "27 May 2026 के judgement में court ने कहा था कि SIR के लिए ECI के पास एक degree of residual authority है।". It uses a May judgment about a separate Bihar document (Annexure D) to justify mandatory online changes integrated directly into Form 6 months later in July, which the court explicitly said it did not approve.

Short version

⚠️ MISLEADING 👉 The Reel confuses two different timelines and documents. 👉 The Supreme Court upheld a separate declaration document used in Bihar in May, but it explicitly stated it did not approve the later changes integrated directly into the online Form 6 in July. 👉 Furthermore, the Reel presents the ECI's claim of unanimous decisions as fact, ignoring that the Supreme Court is currently examining allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner overruled 14 written objections. 🎭 Trick: Mixes up two things 📰 Sources: Alt News, The Wire 🔎 Full check: send this Reel to @checkthis.chat

Does this look wrong?

Related checks

MisleadingIndia is uniquely stable while European nations suffer widespread instabilityPolitics · Trick: Picks only some facts · 19 Oct 2026

No proof yetMahua Moitra was singled out regarding Circuit House accommodation@advcsankit · Politics · 18 Oct 2026

Half the storyBBC headlines prove biased reporting on student protests worldwidePolitics · Trick: Mixes up two things · 18 Oct 2026

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