All SIR Decisions Unanimously Taken; Form 6 Not Amended : ECI Tells Supreme Court

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the Commission.

In a counter-affidavit filed in response to a writ petition challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's functioning and the legality of certain ECI decisions, the Commission has denied allegations that the CEC unilaterally took SIR-related decisions despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.

The affidavit has been filed in response to the writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, in which the Supreme Court had issued notice to the ECI, the CEC and other officials. The petition was filed in the backdrop of an Indian Express report alleging that 14 crucial decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Refuting the allegations, the ECI stated that all three orders concerning the SIR, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions of the Commission.

The affidavit, filed by Dy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, stated that it has been approved unanimously by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

The Commission argued that the petition was founded entirely on a newspaper report and that the petitioner had not independently verified the factual claims with the respondents. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. It further stated that the Commission had never released or authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.

Internal notes do not constitute Commission decisions

The ECI clarified that notes, queries, suggestions or observations recorded by the CEC or Election Commissioners during the processing of a file do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission.

Explaining the decision-making procedure, the Commission stated that files ordinarily move first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other Election Commissioner and finally to the CEC.

The ECI claimed that the decisions in question complied with this statutory framework of Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which mandates that ECI's decisions should be, as far as practica, be unanimous, and if not, then by majority.

Form 6 not amended

The Commission has denied that it amended Form 6 through its SIR orders, maintaining that only the Central Government can amend the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

It explained that the declaration required during the SIR exercise is a separate document and does not constitute an amendment to Form 6.

The controversy arose after the Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to previous intensive electoral rolls.  

The ECI acknowledged that the manner in which the declaration was displayed on the online application platform could give the impression that Form 6 had been amended.

To address this, the Commission stated that, from October 21, 2026, the online application process would be divided into two separate components: Form 6 and the SIR declaration, in line with the procedure followed for physical applications.

The Commission maintained that the declaration was introduced to facilitate the mapping of applicants with earlier electoral rolls and that the changes did not amount to an amendment of the statutory form.

Unmapped voters need not attend hearings

The ECI also explained the decisions it has taken to smoothen the SIR process and help voter inclusions. It stated that voters whose names could not be mapped with previous electoral rolls would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings in person.

Booth Level Officers would collect the necessary documents from their homes and upload them to the ECINet platform for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

Hearings would be required only in exceptional cases and should preferably be conducted online.

On ECINet, the Commission clarified that no name could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll except pursuant to an order passed by the competent ERO.

It also informed the Court that a committee comprising experts from IIT Madras and IISc Bengaluru had been constituted to examine compliance with applicable requirements and review the platform's functioning.

The Commission has contended that the plea seeking to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC is not maintainable.

Relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, it submitted that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.

The ECI also stated that repeated challenges to the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines had already been considered by the Supreme Court.

Stating that it was filing a short response due to the intervening Dussehra holidays, the ECI reserved its right to file a detailed para-wise counter. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant will hear the matter tomorrow. 

On October 5, while issuing notice on the petition, the Court had refused to pass an ex-parte interim order to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, said that they will examine the decisions and will take appropriate action if they are not found to be compatible with the statute.