The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that all decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the three-member Commission. In a counter-affidavit filed in response to a writ petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the legality of specific ECI orders, the poll body denied allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally despite recorded objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
What is the ECI's position on the decision-making process for SIR orders?
The ECI stated that the three orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners. The Commission argued that internal notes or observations recorded during file processing do not constitute Commission decisions, and that the statutory procedure under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, was followed.
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, asserted that the document had been approved unanimously by all three members. The Commission contended that the petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, relied entirely on a newspaper report without independent verification of facts with the respondents, rendering it not maintainable. It further denied that the Commission had released or authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.
Explaining the decision-making procedure, the ECI clarified that files ordinarily move first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC. The Commission maintained that the impugned decisions complied with the statutory framework under Section 18 of the 2023 Act, which mandates that ECI decisions should, as far as practicable, be unanimous, and if not, then by majority.
Form 6 not amended, clarifies Commission
The Commission categorically denied amending Form 6 through its SIR orders. It submitted that only the Central Government possesses the authority to amend the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The ECI explained that the declaration required during the SIR exercise constitutes a separate document and does not amount to an amendment of the statutory form.
The controversy originated from a report alleging that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to previous intensive electoral rolls. Acknowledging that the display of the declaration on the online application platform could create an impression that Form 6 had been amended, the Commission announced a procedural correction. From October 21, 2026, the online application process will be bifurcated into two distinct components: Form 6 and the SIR declaration, aligning the digital process with the procedure followed for physical applications.
The ECI maintained that the declaration was introduced solely to facilitate the mapping of applicants with earlier electoral rolls and reiterated that the changes did not constitute an amendment of the statutory form.
Relaxation for unmapped voters
Detailing measures to streamline the SIR process and facilitate voter inclusion, the Commission stated that voters whose names could not be mapped with previous electoral rolls would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings in person. Booth Level Officers would collect necessary documents from their residences and upload them to the ECINet platform for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). Hearings would be necessitated only in exceptional cases and should preferably be conducted online.
On the functionality of ECINet, the Commission clarified that no name could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll without the approval of the ERO, ensuring that the digital platform operates strictly within the statutory framework.
Allegation / Issue | ECI's Response in Counter-Affidavit |
|---|---|
Unilateral decisions by CEC on SIR | All three SIR orders (June 24, 2025; Oct 27, 2025; May 14, 2026) were unanimous decisions of the full Commission. |
Internal objections by ECs Sandhu and Joshi | Notes, queries, or observations during file processing do not constitute Commission decisions; statutory procedure under Section 18 of the 2023 Act followed. |
Amendment of Form 6 via SIR orders | Only Central Government can amend Form 6 under Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; SIR declaration is a separate document for mapping purposes. |
Online platform implies Form 6 amendment | From Oct 21, 2026, online process bifurcated into Form 6 and SIR declaration to mirror physical application procedure. |
Hearings for unmapped voters | No mandatory in-person hearings; BLOs to collect documents for upload on ECINet; hearings only in exceptional cases, preferably online. |
The Supreme Court had issued notice to the ECI, the CEC, and other officials in the writ petition. The counter-affidavit represents the Commission's formal response denying the procedural and substantive challenges raised against the SIR exercise and the internal decision-making process of the poll panel.