New Delhi: The Election Commission Monday told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was undertaken in accordance with the law with the three orders on its roll-out approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members, and rejected the contention that Form 6 had been amended.
The Election Commission stated this in its response to pleas alleging that the Election Commission (EC) took several decisions without the approval of the two election commissioners, including “changes” in Form 6.
The law and prescribed Form 6 for voter registration were not amended, the poll panel said in its counter-affidavit filed in the apex court with unanimous approval of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and two Election Commissioners.
The EC said the SIR orders issued June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners.
It said that the CEC cannot be restrained from functioning as newspaper reports are not considered as evidence in the eyes of the law.
Earlier October 5, the top court said it will examine all decisions of the EC and annul those found not to be in accordance with law, as it issued notices to the Centre and the poll body.
The pleas were filed after Indian Express reported September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The claim has sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding removal of CEC Kumar.
In its counter-affidavit, the EC said the SIR exercise was undertaken in the discharge of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules.
Rejecting the contention that Form 6 had been amended through the SIR orders, the EC said the declaration prescribed for the exercise was a separate document and not part of the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll.
It said the declaration was intended to facilitate the verification of applicants’ eligibility and the linking of their details with electoral rolls prepared during previous intensive revisions.
The EC said the declaration format introduced for the subsequent phases of SIR was a modification of the earlier format, intended to make the process easier for applicants by allowing them to provide details of themselves or their relatives appearing in previous electoral rolls.
According to the affidavit, applicants whose details could be linked with earlier electoral rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without additional documents. Those unable to provide such details or whose records could not be linked would be required to submit supporting documents as prescribed.
The EC also relied on the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026, judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India case, which, it said, recognised the EC’s authority to prescribe a documentation framework for the revision of electoral rolls.
The affidavit further stated that the EC had decided to facilitate the process for electors who could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls or whose records contained discrepancies.
Booth-level officers would visit their homes to collect documents, which would be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.
The EC said the exercise did not prevent eligible persons from applying for enrolment after the completion of SIR, adding that the regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules.
The EC urged the court to reject the petitioner’s contentions, describing them as misconceived.
