The Supreme Court on Tuesday refrained from directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to preserve its files, internal notings, and communications in the controversy over alleged unilateral decisions on the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, even as it assured petitioners it would examine the records.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana adjourned the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the poll panel and allegations that chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions without the concurrence of the other two election commissioners.
The court gave the petitioners time to respond to a counter-affidavit filed by the ECI on Monday, which maintained that the poll panel took all decisions relating to the SIR unanimously.
When senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Menaka Guruswamy sought an order directing the poll panel to preserve all files, file notings and communications, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the ECI, opposed the request. “The request is unfair. We are talking about a constitutional body,” Mehta submitted.
Singhvi said the petitioners were seeking only an “innocuous order”. The bench responded: “We are aware of everything. Do not worry, we will examine.”
The court, however, did not expressly direct the ECI to preserve the records. It tentatively posted the matter for November 17, giving the petitioners, including senior counsel Vikas Singh, who appeared for lead petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, time to file their rejoinders to the poll panel’s affidavit.
The hearing also saw the court issue notice on a fresh petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen, represented by Guruswamy, challenging aspects of the ECI’s functioning, including alleged changes to the online Form 6 used for voter enrolment.
The petition also objected to a press note issued by the poll panel stating that the Supreme Court had authorised the alleged changes. “It pertains to functioning of ECI including tampering with online Form 6 and EC releasing a press note saying that your lordships have authorised such tampering,” Guruswamy told the bench.
“We will examine,” the court responded.
Guruswamy urged the court to issue notice, arguing that ECI’s latest affidavit accepted several of the petitioners’ allegations. “Please see the audacity of the institution,” she said, referring to the poll panel’s defence of the changes to Form 6.
Singh, appearing for ECI, objected to what he described as “rhetoric intended for another purpose”, saying it should not be permitted. The bench issued notice and asked the petitioners to file rejoinders, while senior lawyers sought time to respond to the ECI’s submissions.
The latest hearing follows the joint counter-affidavit filed on Monday on behalf of ECI, Gyanesh Kumar and election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The affidavit rejected allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally, asserting that the three orders governing the SIR, issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were based on unanimous decisions and complied 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.
The commission also denied amending the statutory Form 6, arguing that the declaration required during the SIR was a separate document prescribed through its orders and not part of the form laid down under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It said the declaration was modified to facilitate linking applicants or their relatives to earlier electoral rolls, potentially allowing applicants to avoid furnishing other supporting documents.
The Form 6 dispute had earlier prompted the Supreme Court to clarify that it had neither approved nor disapproved the alleged modification and that it wanted to examine the original records to establish what changes had been made and by whom.
The broader petitions question whether the ECI, as a multi-member body, could take decisions in the name of the CEC without the other commissioners’ concurrence. The challenge draws on allegations that Sandhu and Joshi raised objections to decisions relating to the SIR and other aspects of electoral-roll management, and that disagreements within the commission were not reflected in how decisions were implemented.
The ECI’s affidavit has maintained that suggestions, queries or objections raised by individual commissioners during deliberations do not, by themselves, amount to decisions of the commission under Section 18. It said the commission decided matters collectively, either at meetings or on files bearing the commissioners’ signatures. Section 18 provides for decisions to be taken unanimously as far as possible and, where the commissioners differ, by majority.
The petitioners have sought production of the commission’s original files, notings and communications to establish how disputed decisions were taken. They have also questioned the functioning of the ECI’s digital electoral-roll systems and alleged that the SIR process excluded eligible voters without adequate safeguards.