The Supreme Court on October 5 issued notices to the Centre, the Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and two Election Commissioners over allegations that key decisions concerning electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken without the approval of the other members of the poll panel. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, however, declined to pass an interim order suspending Kumar, saying it needed an authenticated record and responses from the concerned authorities before reaching a conclusion.
The petitions allege that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 against decisions allegedly taken without their concurrence. The Court has sought responses within a week and indicated that decisions found to have violated the law could subsequently be annulled.
Court Seeks Records of Form No 6 Decision
The petitions, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, challenge the manner in which the ECI has allegedly exercised its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The petitioners argue that the ECI is a multi-member constitutional body and that its decisions are expected to be taken unanimously or, where members differ, by majority. Section 18 of the 2023 law provides for this framework. The petitioners have alleged that several decisions relating to SIR, voter registration, electoral-roll software and other processes were taken without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing one of the petitioners, urged the Court to suspend Kumar and sought immediate safeguards, arguing that the alleged unilateral functioning could undermine confidence in the electoral process. The bench, however, refused to act solely on reports and allegations. “The newspaper report may be 100 per cent correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today,” CJI Surya Kant observed. The Court said it would first examine authenticated records and responses from the respondents. It also indicated that if records establish that decisions were neither unanimous nor taken by majority, such decisions could be restrained or annulled.
Form 6 Controversy Brings Fresh Focus
The hearing also brought the contentious Form 6 issue into sharp focus. Form 6 is the statutory form used by people seeking inclusion in electoral rolls as new voters. During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant categorically clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified version of the form. “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear,” he said, adding that the Court would examine the records to determine who had made the modification.
The clarification assumes significance because the ECI had said in a September 26 press note that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The controversy intensified after reports that the two Election Commissioners had objected to the changes, arguing that modifications to the statutory form required an amendment to the relevant electoral rules. The ECI, meanwhile, has defended its functioning, saying that differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberation. It has maintained that the Commission’s decisions over the past year were unanimous and that its orders have legal sanction and comply with statutory procedures.
The wider dispute follows an investigation reporting that Sandhu and Joshi had raised 14 formal objections over 10 months on issues including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll software and the handling of appeals. The controversy has unfolded amid the nationwide SIR exercise, which has drawn opposition criticism over the deletion and verification of voter names. The petitions seek, among other reliefs, examination of the ECI’s original records, possible cancellation of decisions allegedly taken outside the statutory framework and an independent inquiry into the disputed actions.
The political response has been sharply divided. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said the Supreme Court had an opportunity to restore public confidence in the Election Commission and accused the CEC of violating the law and Constitution, allegations that remain disputed and unproven. The BJP, meanwhile, welcomed the judicial process. Party spokesperson Sambit Patra said the proceedings demonstrated that institutions were functioning independently and described the situation as evidence of democracy at work.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Election Commission is one of the institutions on which India’s democratic process fundamentally depends. That makes both accountability and institutional independence equally important. Allegations against a constitutional authority should be investigated through evidence and due process, rather than political rhetoric, while the Commission must be willing to provide clear answers wherever legitimate questions are raised. The Supreme Court’s decision to seek records before granting interim relief reinforces the principle that serious allegations require verification, not assumptions.
At the same time, transparency from the ECI and the Centre can help prevent uncertainty from eroding public confidence in elections. As the Court examines the matter, should all institutions involved commit to maximum transparency so that citizens can trust both the electoral process and the safeguards designed to protect it?
Also Read: Spain Housing Crisis: Around 70,000 Protest In Madrid As Rent Anger Sweeps Across 50 Cities
