New Delhi [India], October 5 : Congress MP Manickam Tagore on Monday alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was “working as an agent” of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and accused the Election Commission of “lying” to the Supreme Court over the modification of Form 6 amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
“We all know that the way the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Gyanesh Kumar, has been acting has now reached the next level. They have lied to the Supreme Court. I hope the Supreme Court takes cognisance of this lie,” Tagore said while speaking to ANI.
Tagore alleged that the changes to the electoral roll process were aimed at denying people their right to vote and particularly targeted young voters.
“The Chief Election Commissioner, who is working as an agent for Mr Amit Shah, continues to do these kinds of things to save Mr Amit Shah and Mr Modi from the young voters who are against them because of their fake promises over the past years,” he said.
“Now, they want to deny people the right to vote as well. They want to take it away through various kinds of gimmicks, through SIR, through all kinds of Form 6 issues and others. It is a continuous process,” Tagore added.
His remarks came after the Supreme Court on Monday clarified that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6, which is used for enrolment of new voters.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing pleas challenging the functioning of the Election Commission and seeking action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, said, “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified.”
The clarification came after the Election Commission, in a September 26 press statement, had said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been “upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Centre, the Election Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the other Election Commissioners on a plea alleging that several decisions related to SIR were taken unilaterally. The court, however, declined to pass an interim order seeking the CEC's suspension, saying the respondents must first be heard.
The bench indicated that it would examine the records and determine who authorised the changes to Form 6. It also observed that any decision found to have violated the statutory framework could subsequently be annulled.