‘All SIR orders were unanimous, Form 6 not amended’: ECI tells Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all three orders relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimous decisions, rejecting allegations of internal differences within the poll body. In a counter-affidavit, the Commission also maintained that Form 6, the statutory application for voter registration, had not been amended through the SIR orders.
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The ECI argued that the plea was based on a news report and described the allegations against the Commission as misconceived and not maintainable in law.
The response comes amid controversy over an Indian Express report alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to some of Kumar’s decisions. The Commission said the affidavit had been approved unanimously by all three members.
ECI says SIR decisions were unanimous
The Commission said the three SIR orders, issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026, were taken unanimously. It maintained that comments, queries or suggestions made by individual commissioners while files are being processed do not by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission.
Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the Commission is expected to take decisions unanimously as far as possible, with differences resolved by majority. The ECI said decisions are taken collectively at meetings or through files carrying the commissioners’ signatures.
Addressing reports of differences over internal work allocation, the affidavit said letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29, 2026, concerned an officer on deputation and the allocation of work, rather than policy decisions on SIR or matters handled by the IT division.
The Commission said an order issued on July 28 concerning an additional secretary-level officer was not implemented after the two Election Commissioners issued joint directions on July 30. It argued that the episode did not establish that the SIR decisions lacked the other commissioners’ concurrence.
ECI rejects claim that Form 6 was amended
The ECI said the SIR orders did not amend Form 6, arguing that the declaration introduced during the revision was a separate document and not part of the statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Under the June 2025 order, the declaration was called Annexure D. Later orders replaced it with Annexure IV. The Commission said the declaration was intended to help applicants link themselves or their relatives to earlier electoral rolls. The pplicants unable to provide the required details could submit supporting documents.
The issue came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court clarified on October 5 that it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 and wanted to examine the original records. The ECI said the online application process was to be split into Form 6 and a separate declaration from October 21, matching the format of physical applications.
Voter verification and petition maintainability
The Commission said voters whose names could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls would not ordinarily need to attend hearings as Booth Level Officers would visit their homes to collect documents. Hearings would be held in special cases and as a priority, online.
It also said no voter could be added to or removed from the electoral roll through ECINet without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer. A committee of experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science had been formed to examine whether the rules were being followed.
On the petition against Kumar, the ECI argued that the CEC could be removed only through a process similar to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge. It also said it had neither released internal notes or files to the media nor authorised anyone else to do so.
The Commission citing the Dussehra holidays said it had filed a brief response and sought permission to submit a detailed, point-by-point reply.