In its counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the poll panel said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday (October 26) defended its decision to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Supreme Court, stating that the exercise was carried out in accordance with the law and that all three members of the Commission unanimously approved the orders governing its implementation.
In its counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the poll panel said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Election Commission was responding to petitions alleging that several decisions related to the electoral roll revision were taken without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, including alleged changes to Form 6, which is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.
The ECI maintained that neither the law nor the prescribed Form 6 had been amended through the SIR orders. It urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitioners' contentions, describing them as misconceived.
EC says SIR was conducted under constitutional mandate
In its affidavit, the Commission said the SIR exercise was undertaken in discharge of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules.
Rejecting allegations that Form 6 had been changed, the ECI said the declaration introduced for the SIR exercise was a separate document and did not form part of the statutory form prescribed for inclusion in electoral rolls.
According to the Commission, the declaration was intended to help verify applicants' eligibility and establish links between their details and electoral rolls prepared during previous intensive revisions.
The affidavit said the declaration format introduced for subsequent phases of the SIR was modified to make the process easier for applicants. It allowed them to provide details of themselves or their relatives appearing in earlier electoral rolls.
Applicants whose details could be linked to previous electoral rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without providing additional documents, the Commission said. Those unable to furnish such details, or whose records could not be linked, would be required to submit supporting documents as prescribed.
The ECI also cited the Supreme Court's May 27, 2026, judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India case, saying it recognised the Commission's authority to prescribe a documentation framework for the revision of electoral rolls.
Booth-level officers to help applicants with document submission
The Commission said it had decided to facilitate the process for electors who could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls or whose records contained discrepancies.
Under the arrangement described in the affidavit, booth-level officers (BLOs) would visit applicants' homes to collect documents. These would then be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.
The ECI also clarified that the SIR exercise would not prevent eligible individuals from applying for enrolment after its completion. The regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules, it said.
Supreme Court had said it would examine EC decisions
The affidavit comes after the Supreme Court, on October 5, said it would examine decisions taken by the Election Commission and annul those found to be contrary to law. The court had issued notices to the Centre and the poll panel on the petitions.
PTI reported that the pleas followed a report by The Indian Express published on September 25, which said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over the preceding 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR.
According to the report, the two commissioners had objected that certain decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The allegations triggered protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Election Commission, meanwhile, said its counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court had itself been unanimously approved by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.
The poll panel also argued that the CEC could not be restrained from discharging his functions on the basis of newspaper reports, contending that such reports do not constitute evidence in the eyes of law.
(With PTI inputs)