The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all orders relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. In an affidavit filed on October 26, the poll panel rejected allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally or that the other two commissioners were sidelined.
It also denied amending Form 6, the statutory application used for voter registration, saying the additional SIR declaration was a separate document. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter on October 27.
Three Orders Called Unanimous
The ECI said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were all decisions of the Commission and were approved unanimously. This is the poll panel’s response to a petition alleging that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had taken SIR-related decisions without the approval of Sandhu and Joshi.
The Commission explained that files ordinarily move through the two Election Commissioners before reaching the CEC. It said suggestions, queries or observations recorded by an individual commissioner while examining a file do not, by themselves, constitute a final decision of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2023 law governing the functioning of the ECI.
In urgent matters, the ECI said, members can provide approval electronically, with the approval subsequently recorded on the file.
What The Petition Claims
The Supreme Court case follows allegations concerning the internal functioning of the poll panel. The petition was filed against the CEC after a report alleged that the two other commissioners had raised objections to several decisions concerning the SIR process.
The ECI has disputed the evidentiary basis of those allegations, arguing that the petition relies on a newspaper report and that the Commission had neither released nor authorised the release of its internal files or notes to the media. The poll body has therefore described the challenge as misconceived and not maintainable.
Importantly, the ECI’s position does not mean that every allegation about disagreements within the Commission has been judicially settled. The affidavit establishes what the poll panel says were the final, authorised decisions; the Supreme Court will determine the legal questions raised by the petition.
Form 6 Dispute Explained
The ECI has also rejected claims that it amended Form 6, which is used by people seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. It said only the Central Government can amend the statutory form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The controversy arose over an additional declaration requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves, their parents or grandparents to earlier electoral rolls. The ECI maintains that this was a separate SIR declaration, intended to help establish links with previous rolls, rather than a modification of Form 6 itself.
Online Presentation Raised Questions
The Commission has, however, acknowledged that the way the separate declaration was presented on the online application platform could have created the impression that Form 6 itself had been amended.
To address this, the ECI said its Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21, 2026 to separate the online Form 6 application from the SIR declaration, bringing the digital process in line with the procedure followed for physical applications. The Commission said the earlier combined presentation was intended to make the application process easier by allowing a single OTP and e-signature.
Safeguards For Unmapped Voters
The ECI has also outlined measures for voters whose names cannot initially be linked to earlier electoral rolls. It said Booth Level Officers would collect the required documents from such voters at their homes, meaning they would ordinarily not have to appear personally before an Electoral Registration Officer.
The Commission said hearings would be required only in exceptional cases and should preferably be conducted online. It also maintained that eligible citizens would continue to have an opportunity to seek inclusion in the electoral roll, subject to the applicable rules.
Internal Work Allocation Row
The affidavit also acknowledged an episode involving the ECI’s internal distribution of work. An office order issued on July 28, 2026, by an IAS officer of Additional Secretary rank posted on deputation to the Commission dealt with internal work allocation.
Sandhu and Joshi subsequently wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan on July 29. The ECI said the order was never implemented because of a joint direction issued by the two commissioners on July 30, and that the earlier work-allocation arrangement continued.
CEC Restraint Also Challenged
The petition also seeks restrictions on CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning. The ECI has opposed this request, citing Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
The Supreme Court had previously issued notice in the matter but declined to pass an ex-parte interim order suspending Kumar. The court is now expected to examine the competing claims and the legality of the ECI’s decision-making process.
Supreme Court To Hear Case
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter on October 27, along with other petitions concerning the SIR process and the functioning of the Election Commission, including a petition associated with Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. The ECI has said it filed the October 26 response as a short affidavit because of the Dussehra vacation and has reserved the right to submit a more detailed, paragraph-wise response.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Electoral rolls determine who can exercise one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy: voting. That makes both the revision process and the institution conducting it deserving of close scrutiny, while allegations on either side should be tested through evidence rather than political confrontation.
The ECI’s clarification is significant, but so is the Supreme Court’s role in independently examining the concerns raised before it. Ultimately, how can India’s electoral institutions ensure that every eligible voter is protected from wrongful exclusion while maintaining accurate and transparent voter rolls?
