The Supreme Court is likely to hear on November 17 a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. During Tuesday’s hearing, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant gave the petitioners 10 days to respond to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) counter-affidavit, which rejects allegations that Kumar took key decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitions, including those filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, also raise questions over electoral-roll changes and the alleged modification of Form 6, which is used to enrol new voters. The ECI has maintained that all three SIR orders under challenge were taken unanimously and that the statutory Form 6 was never amended. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the merits of these allegations.
ECI Defends Decisions
In its 248-page counter-affidavit, the ECI rejected the allegation that the CEC acted unilaterally. It said the three SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were decisions of the Commission taken unanimously by Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi. The poll panel argued that suggestions, queries or objections recorded by individual commissioners during internal deliberations do not, by themselves, amount to final decisions of the Commission.
It also said its affidavit had itself been approved unanimously by all three commissioners. The ECI described the allegations against its functioning as “unfortunate” and argued that the petitions were based largely on media reports rather than independently verified evidence.
Petitioners Challenge Process
The petitioners have disputed the ECI’s account and sought judicial scrutiny of how decisions were reached within the poll panel. Their pleas allege that several important decisions connected to electoral-roll management and the SIR were taken without the concurrence of Sandhu and Joshi. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, told the court that internal file notings and communications could help establish whether decisions were genuinely unanimous.
He sought directions to preserve such records. CJI Surya Kant responded, “We know everything. We will examine.” However, the court did not issue an interim direction ordering the preservation of the records. The allegations remain contested and have not been judicially established.
Form 6 Dispute
A separate but connected issue concerns Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible citizens to seek inclusion in electoral rolls. TMC Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen has challenged what she alleges were changes to the online version of the form during the SIR process.
The Supreme Court issued notice on her plea. The ECI, however, maintains that it did not amend the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Instead, it says an additional declaration was prescribed alongside the form for the SIR process. The Commission has acknowledged that the way the declaration appeared on its online platform could have created the impression that Form 6 itself had been changed. The court has previously made clear that it had neither approved nor disapproved any modified Form 6 and wants to examine the original records to determine what was changed and by whom.
What Section 18 Says
The dispute also involves how the ECI is required to take decisions. Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 states that the Commission should, as far as possible, take decisions unanimously. Where the commissioners differ, the matter is decided by majority.
The petitioners argue that this framework requires genuine collective decision-making, while the ECI says internal objections or observations during deliberations cannot automatically be treated as evidence that a final decision was not unanimous. The court will have to examine these competing interpretations alongside the records placed before it.
Earlier Court Proceedings
The latest hearing follows the Supreme Court’s October 5 proceedings, when it declined to grant an interim request to suspend Gyanesh Kumar and sought responses from the ECI and the Centre.
The court had said it would examine the allegations concerning the Commission’s decision-making. The present proceedings therefore remain at the stage of examining pleadings and evidence; the Supreme Court has not found that Kumar acted unilaterally, that the SIR was unlawful, or that the ECI illegally altered Form 6. The next hearing on November 17 is expected to take place after the petitioners file their rejoinders to the ECI’s defence.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The credibility of electoral institutions depends not only on the final outcome of elections but also on public confidence in how voter rolls are prepared and how decisions are taken. Allegations concerning unilateral decision-making or changes to voter-registration procedures deserve transparent, evidence-based scrutiny, while institutions and political parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their positions.
The Supreme Court’s examination of the competing claims can help ensure that disagreements are resolved through evidence and due process rather than political confrontation. Ultimately, protecting every eligible citizen’s right to participate in elections should remain the common priority. Do you think greater transparency in the Election Commission’s decision-making could strengthen public trust in India’s electoral process?
Also Read: India’s Aditya Stages Comeback After Early Setback To Win World U-19 Boxing Gold
