India news Live Updates, 26 October 2026: Modi government using every possible trick to protect Gyanesh Kumar, says Mallikarjun Kharge

Mallikarjun Kharge alleges that the Modi government is trying to shield Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from criticism over what he calls repeated revelations of “vote theft.” His claim turns a dispute about election records into a wider political confrontation involving the government, the Election Commission and Congress.

Kharge points to several examples. He says the Election Commission refused an RTI request for information about software used in the Special Intensive Revision, citing “Trade Secrets.” He also says details of 16.18 lakh Form-6 applications in Uttar Pradesh remain unpublished. In Pilibhit records, he says irregularities involving 10,470 voters were detected.

The Election Commission has reportedly ordered an investigation of Forms 6, 7 and 8 across Uttar Pradesh. Kharge is urging people to join Congress’s “Save Votes–Save the Nation” march and rally in Delhi on November 1. The allegations and the investigation could intensify demands for explanations, though the source does not establish that vote theft occurred.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to review electoral rolls and update them. It can involve checking existing entries, adding eligible voters, correcting information and removing entries that no longer qualify. The aim is to make the roll more accurate before elections. The source article discusses SIR but does not define its full procedure.

Software is useful because voter records involve large amounts of information. Systems can receive and organise applications, match names and personal details, track changes, and flag possible duplicates or inconsistencies for officials to examine. It can also help maintain an audit trail of decisions. Human officials still need to verify disputed or unusual cases.

The controversy concerns access to information about the software used in SIR. The Election Commission refused an RTI request by citing “Trade Secrets,” according to Kharge. That response has made transparency a central issue. The source does not establish whether the software caused errors or whether any alleged irregularities were confirmed.

The figures highlight the scale of the dispute over voter records in Uttar Pradesh. According to Mallikarjun Kharge, details of 16.18 lakh Form-6 applications have not been made public. Form 6 applications concern people seeking inclusion in the electoral roll, so undisclosed application data can make public scrutiny more difficult.

Kharge separately said that irregularities involving 10,470 voters were detected in records from Pilibhit. The article does not explain the precise nature of those irregularities. It also does not say that all 16.18 lakh applications were problematic. The two numbers therefore describe different concerns: a large set of unpublished applications and a smaller reported set of irregular records.

The Election Commission has now been forced, in Kharge’s words, to order an investigation into Forms 6, 7 and 8 across Uttar Pradesh. That inquiry may clarify how many records contain errors and what caused them. Until the investigation reports its findings, the figures remain allegations or reported irregularities rather than proof of deliberate vote theft.

In India’s voter-registration system, Form 6 is used by an eligible person seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. Form 7 is used to object to an entry or request deletion, such as when a record is believed to be ineligible or duplicated. Form 8 is used to correct or update details in an existing voter record, such as a name, address or other entry.

Together, the forms create a basic mechanism for maintaining the roll. A person can seek inclusion through Form 6, another person can raise an objection through Form 7, and an existing voter can request a correction through Form 8. Election officials examine the submissions and update records according to the applicable rules.

The article says an investigation into all three forms has been ordered across Uttar Pradesh. That matters because problems could affect additions, deletions and corrections at the same time. The investigation should help establish whether reported irregularities arose from mistakes, weak verification or other causes. The source does not give the inquiry’s findings.

If errors or irregularities are found across Uttar Pradesh, some voters could be wrongly included, excluded or listed with incorrect details. That could make it harder for eligible people to vote or allow inaccurate entries to remain on the roll. The seriousness would depend on the number of affected records and the nature of the errors.

The three forms cover different parts of roll maintenance. Form 6 applications can add voters, Form 7 objections can seek deletion or challenge an entry, and Form 8 requests can change existing details. Problems in any of these channels could therefore affect the roll’s accuracy. Officials might need to verify applications, contact applicants, correct records and review decisions.

The Election Commission has ordered an investigation into Forms 6, 7 and 8 across Uttar Pradesh. Its findings could lead to corrections or stronger checks, but the source does not specify the eventual action. The process may also intensify political demands for disclosure, especially because Kharge says large numbers of applications and some Pilibhit irregularities remain unresolved.

The Election Commission refused to provide information about the SIR software under the Right to Information Act, citing “Trade Secrets,” according to Mallikarjun Kharge. In general, a trade-secret claim means an organisation considers certain technical or commercial details confidential because disclosure could reveal protected methods or systems.

Software used in a large administrative process may contain code, security designs, technical specifications or information supplied by a private contractor. Authorities might argue that releasing such material could harm commercial interests or create security risks. However, the source does not identify the software owner, specify which information was requested, or explain the Election Commission’s full legal reasoning.

The refusal has become politically important because the software is connected to SIR, which affects electoral-roll records. Kharge argues that withholding the information weakens public accountability. The wider question is how to balance legitimate confidentiality with meaningful scrutiny. The article does not report whether the refusal was challenged or overturned, so its final status remains unclear.

Voter rolls are created and maintained through applications to add people, requests to remove or challenge entries, and applications to correct existing details. In India, these functions are generally associated with Forms 6, 7 and 8. Election officials process the submissions, examine supporting information and update the roll. The article focuses on an investigation into these forms in Uttar Pradesh.

The mechanism depends on both administrative checking and opportunities for scrutiny. Officials can examine unusual records, compare information and investigate complaints. In this case, Kharge cites unpublished details of 16.18 lakh Form-6 applications and reported irregularities involving 10,470 voters in Pilibhit. The Election Commission has ordered a broader investigation, which may test the accuracy of the records.

Transparency matters because voters need confidence that eligible people are included and inaccurate entries are corrected. Public information can help reveal patterns, errors or unexplained decisions. It can also make officials answerable. The source shows that these issues are politically contested, but it does not establish the final findings or prove deliberate manipulation.