All SIR decisions unanimous, Form 6 not amended: Election Commission to Supreme Court

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.

Also Read | Supreme Court notice to ECI on plea against Maharashtra SIR deletions

“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

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.