EC tells Supreme Court SIR orders were lawful and unanimously approved

The Election Commission defended the SIR before the Supreme Court and sought dismissal of petitions. It argued that unanimous approvals and statutory safeguards countered claims against the poll process.

In Short

• Chief Justice Surya Kant-led bench will hear the petitions on Tuesday
• The declaration was separate, though its online display caused confusion
• Booth-level officers will collect documents, limiting personal hearings to exceptions

The Election Commission has strongly defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court, saying the exercise was authorised by law and the related orders were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission, news agency Press Trust of India reported.

In a 248-page response to petitions against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and decisions taken during the SIR, the poll panel also rejected allegations that Form 6, used for voter registration, had been amended. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to hear the petitions on Tuesday.

The Commission sought summary dismissal of the petitions, calling the allegations "misconceived" and saying they were based on a single newspaper report. "The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate," Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu said in the affidavit filed on behalf of the poll panel, according to PTI.

The EC said the affidavit was approved for filing through a unanimous decision by all three members. It added that the SIR orders of June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were also issued following unanimous decisions.

According to the Commission, the decisions 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. Section 18 requires the Commission to conduct its business unanimously as far as possible and decide matters by majority when members differ.

The poll body said any suggestion, observation or query raised by a commissioner while a file is being processed "does not constitute a decision" of the Commission. It explained that files first go to one election commissioner, then to the other and finally to the CEC. Approved decisions carry the signatures of all three members.

When urgent orders are required and members are not available in person, approval is obtained electronically and later recorded on the file, the Commission said.

On the Form 6 dispute, the EC said it "unequivocally rejects the misleading contention" that the statutory form had been changed. Form 6 is used by eligible people seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.

The affidavit said the declaration attached during the SIR was a separate document provided under the SIR orders and "is not a part of Form 6". The declaration used during the Bihar SIR was later replaced in subsequent orders to allow applicants to provide details about themselves, their parents or grandparents from the 2002-03 electoral rolls. This would help them avoid submitting further documents once the details were successfully matched.

The Commission, however, acknowledged that the way the declaration was displayed on its online platform "could be construed as though an amendment of Form 6 had been made". It said the declaration had been merged with the online Form 6 page so that applicants needed only one one-time password and one electronic signature instead of two.

After deliberations, the Electoral Rolls Division decided on October 21 that online applications would also be divided into two parts, as is the case with physical forms.

Responding to allegations about communication between the election commissioners and the cabinet secretary, the EC said an office order on the allocation of internal work was issued on July 28 by an IAS officer of additional secretary rank who was on deputation to the Commission.

The two election commissioners wrote separate letters to the cabinet secretary the next day about the order and the officer's conduct. The order "was never implemented" following their joint direction on July 30, the Commission said.

The affidavit also said the Commission unanimously decided on September 26 that booth-level officers would visit the homes of people who had received notices during the ongoing SIR and collect their documents. This would ensure that they did not have to appear in person for hearings. Hearings would be held only in exceptional cases and preferably online, it added.

Addressing concerns about the ECINet portal, the Commission said no entry was added, deleted or modified without an order from the electoral registration officer. It said a committee headed by a senior deputy election commissioner and including independent experts from IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, was formed on October 14 to examine whether the portal complied with the law.

The poll body also said appeals filed in West Bengal against orders including electors in the rolls had been submitted by officers of the state chief electoral officer's office in their capacity as statutory authorities and in line with Supreme Court orders. "These matters were not brought to the Commission," it said.

Questioning whether the petitions could be legally considered, the Commission said: "In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates." It added that it had "neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note/ file to any news agency".

Citing Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which protects the CEC from removal except in the manner prescribed for a Supreme Court judge, the EC said any request to restrain the CEC from functioning could not be maintained. Such a direction would disrupt decision-making under the 2023 Act, it said.

The Commission also rejected the petitioner's claims about electronic voting machines, saying similar challenges had been dismissed by the Supreme Court several times.

The petitions were filed after The Indian Express reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR. According to the report, they said the orders had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The claim led to protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party, which demanded Kumar's removal as CEC.

In its response, the Election Commission maintained that the SIR decisions were lawful and unanimous, denied amending Form 6 and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions based on what it described as unsupported allegations.

- Ends