Poll panel denies changing the statutory voter registration form.
TBS Report
27 October, 2026, 01:15 am
Last modified: 27 October, 2026, 01:22 am
India's Election Commission has told the Supreme Court that its decision to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was taken unanimously and that the exercise was carried out in accordance with the law.
In its response to petitions alleging that several decisions were taken without the approval of the two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the poll panel said neither the law nor the prescribed Form 6 for voter registration had been amended.
The commission said its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court had been unanimously approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners.
It also maintained that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 had received unanimous approval from the three members of the Commission.
The EC further argued that the chief election commissioner could not be restrained from functioning, saying newspaper reports did not constitute evidence in the eyes of the law.
Supreme Court to examine EC decisions
On 5 October, the Supreme Court said it would examine the Election Commission's decisions and annul any found to be contrary to the law. The court also issued notices to the Indian government and the poll panel.
The petitions followed a report published by The Indian Express on 25 September, which said Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR exercise.
According to the report, the commissioners had said the decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The allegations have sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which have demanded Kumar's removal as chief election commissioner.
EC defends legal basis of revision
In its counter-affidavit, the Commission said the SIR exercise was conducted as part 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 allegation that the SIR orders amended Form 6, the EC said the declaration prescribed for the exercise was a separate document and did not form part of the statutory form used to enrol voters.
The declaration was intended to help verify applicants' eligibility and link their details with electoral rolls prepared during previous intensive revisions, the Commission said.
The EC urged the court to reject the petitioners' arguments, describing their contentions as misconceived.