E-Paper
All SIR decisions unanimous, Form 6 not amended: Election Commission to Supreme Court
The affidavit was filed on Monday through deputy election commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu.
Prefer HTon Google
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all decisions relating to the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by its three members, rejecting allegations that chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally or that the poll panel violated the law governing its decision-making process.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the ECI, Kumar and the two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the poll panel has also denied amending the statutory Form 6 used for enrolling new voters, arguing that the additional declaration required during the SIR was a separate document prescribed through its orders and not a modification of the form laid down under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The affidavit, filed on Monday through deputy election commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, asserts that the three SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were issued in accordance with unanimous decisions of the Commission and in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
“All contentions to the contrary are erroneous, and the attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate,” states the affidavit, describing the petitions challenging the poll panel’s functioning as misconceived and not maintainable in law.
The response comes amid allegations, based on media reports, that Sandhu and Joshi objected to Kumar’s decisions on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, including on matters relating to electoral-roll management, voter registration and information technology. The controversy has prompted petitions seeking judicial scrutiny of the Commission’s internal decision-making, including whether its nationwide SIR exercise was lawfully authorised.
The affidavit maintains that suggestions, queries or objections raised by individual commissioners or officials during deliberations do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2023 Act. It says matters placed before the Commission are discussed collectively and that decisions are taken after considering the views expressed during deliberations.
“The issues which are put up before the Election Commission for decision, are taken by the Election Commission and are decided in terms of Section 18 of the 2023 Act,” reads the affidavit, adding that such decisions are taken at meetings of the commissioners or on noted files and bear their signatures.
Section 18 provides that the Commission should, as far as possible, take decisions unanimously, and that any differences of opinion must be resolved by majority. The petitioners contend that the requirement for collective decision-making cannot be satisfied merely by subsequent approval or by treating individual objections as routine administrative exchanges.
Addressing the reported differences between the two election commissioners and Kumar, the affidavit says the letters Sandhu and Joshi sent to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29, 2026, concerned an officer on deputation to the Commission and the internal allocation of work, rather than policy decisions or matters handled by the IT division.
It states that an office order issued on July 28, 2026, concerning an IAS officer of the rank of additional secretary posted on deputation to the ECI was never implemented after the two commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30. The affidavit argues that the correspondence cannot be treated as evidence that key SIR decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other commissioners.
Also Read | ‘Citizens can challenge false poll affidavits without ECI sanction’, says Supreme Court
No amendment to Form 6
On Form 6, the ECI has specifically rejected the contention that the statutory form was amended through the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026.
The Commission says an additional declaration was prescribed alongside Form 6 for applicants seeking enrolment as new voters during the SIR. Under the June 2025 order, the declaration was designated Annexure D; the subsequent orders substituted it with Annexure IV, with the objective of facilitating the process of linking applicants or their relatives with earlier electoral rolls.
The affidavit explains that the additional declaration was intended to allow applicants to provide details connecting them with previous intensive revisions and, where the required information was available, avoid the need to furnish supporting documents during the claims and objections stage. Where such details were unavailable or not provided, applicants could submit the prescribed supporting documents.
“Thus, there is no change in Form 6 vide the 3 SIR Orders, as sought to be alleged,” states the affidavit, maintaining that the declaration is an independent document and not part of the statutory form prescribed under the 1960 Rules.
The issue had come under scrutiny after the Supreme Court, during an earlier hearing on October 5, clarified that it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 and wanted to examine the original records to establish what changes had been made and by whom. The court’s observations followed an ECI statement that the declaration attached to Form 6 during the Bihar SIR had been upheld by the court. The ECI subsequently clarified that it was referring to the separate declaration rather than an amendment to the statutory form.
What the Opposition has sought in its plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar?
The INDIA bloc petition, led by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and joined by 12 other Opposition leaders, has sought an independent, time-bound inquiry into the alleged unilateral exercise of powers by Kumar and the functioning of the ECI. It also seeks suspension of the ongoing SIR pending an inquiry, production of the complete files, minutes, notings and objections relating to disputed decisions, and a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the poll panel’s decisions and technical systems.
The petitioners have argued that the alleged exercise of collective powers by a single member, if established, would raise questions of compliance with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. They have also questioned the centralised functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases and alleged that eligible voters have been excluded without adequate notice, hearing or an effective mechanism for restoration.
The Opposition leaders have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the validity of the Bihar SIR exercise, but want the court to examine whether the decisions taken during its implementation complied with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
The affidavit is part of a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court examining the ECI’s decision-making process and the legality of disputed SIR-related measures. The court had earlier sought responses from the poll panel and other respondents, indicating that decisions found to have been taken contrary to the law could be set aside.
Form 6 is the statutory application under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, for inclusion of a person’s name in an electoral roll. The controversy concerns an additional declaration introduced in its online version during the SIR exercise, requiring applicants to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR.
The requirement had significant implications for first-time voters and those seeking re-enrolment. A person who has recently turned 18, for instance, would not ordinarily have featured in a roll prepared during an earlier SIR and could therefore be required to establish a link through a parent or grandparent. It also raised concerns for voters excluded during revision and seeking to be re-enrolled.
The change reportedly triggered a dispute within the Election Commission over whether it amounted to an alteration of the statutory form. According to an Indian Express report, election commissioners Joshi and Sandhu objected that Form 6, being prescribed under the 1960 Rules, could not be modified through the online version without following the statutory procedure. Under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Centre frames these Rules in consultation with the Commission, and amendments must be notified and laid before Parliament.
The Election Commission, however, maintained that the statutory Form 6 had not been altered and that the additional declaration was introduced only for the SIR exercise through an addendum. It later clarified that the declaration would apply only during the SIR period, while the statutory form would be used otherwise. The declaration was also withdrawn from the online form in states and Union territories where SIR had been completed, with applicants there reverting to the statutory Form 6.
