The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously. The Commission has also denied allegations that it amended Form 6 through its SIR-related orders.
The clarification came in a counter-affidavit filed in response to petitions questioning the decision-making process of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the legality of certain Election Commission decisions.
According to a report published by LiveLaw on October 26, 2026, the ECI maintained that the disputed decisions followed the applicable legal procedure. However, the wider controversy concerns how electoral revision decisions were made and how the declaration required from new voter applicants was presented online.
What Did the Election Commission Tell the Supreme Court?
The ECI stated that three orders concerning the SIR exercise, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions of the Commission.
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, was also approved by the Chief Election Commissioner and the other two Election Commissioners, according to the report.
The Commission rejected allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner independently took important SIR-related decisions despite objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The dispute emerged after a newspaper report alleged that objections had been recorded against several decisions associated with the electoral roll revision exercise. The ECI argued that the petition relied on a newspaper report without independently verifying the claims with the concerned authorities.
These statements represent the Commission’s position in the ongoing legal dispute. The allegations raised in the petitions and the Commission’s response must be considered separately from any final judicial determination.
What Is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls?
The Special Intensive Revision, commonly called SIR, is an exercise undertaken to review electoral rolls. Electoral rolls contain the names of people registered to vote in a particular constituency.
Such revision exercises are intended to help maintain accurate voter records and facilitate the inclusion of eligible citizens. They can also raise questions about documentation, verification procedures and access to voter registration.
The current controversy involves the procedures used during SIR, including the information requested from applicants seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
The central questions include whether the relevant decisions were taken according to the Election Commission’s statutory decision-making process and whether the online voter application process followed the prescribed rules.
Why Is Form 6 at the Centre of the Controversy?
Form 6 is used by eligible individuals to apply for inclusion in an electoral roll. The controversy concerns an additional declaration associated with applications submitted during the SIR process.
According to the ECI’s affidavit, the Commission did not amend Form 6 through its SIR orders. It argued that the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, can be amended only by the Central Government.
The Commission maintained that the declaration introduced during SIR was a separate document rather than an amendment to the statutory form.
The declaration sought information intended to help establish whether an applicant, or their parents or grandparents, could be linked to earlier intensive electoral rolls.
However, the ECI acknowledged that the way the declaration appeared on its online application platform could create the impression that Form 6 itself had been changed.
This distinction between the prescribed form and an additional declaration is central to the legal debate.
ECI Says Form 6 and the SIR Declaration Will Be Separated Online
To address the confusion, the Election Commission stated that the online application process would be divided into two separate components from October 21, 2026: Form 6 and the SIR declaration.
The Commission said the arrangement would bring the online process in line with the procedure followed for physical applications.
According to the ECI, the declaration was introduced to make it easier to map applicants against earlier electoral rolls. It maintained that this requirement did not amount to a formal amendment of Form 6.
The distinction matters because voter registration forms are governed by prescribed rules. Any question about whether an additional declaration is legally permissible depends on the applicable legal framework and the issues raised before the Court.
The Commission’s explanation describes its position; it does not, by itself, settle every legal question concerning the declaration.
What Does the Law Say About ECI Decision-Making?
The Commission referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
According to the ECI, the provision requires Commission decisions to be taken unanimously as far as practicable. Where unanimity cannot be achieved, decisions are made by majority.
The Commission also explained that internal file notes, questions, suggestions and observations recorded by individual Election Commissioners do not automatically constitute final decisions of the Commission.
It said files ordinarily move through the two Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner.
The dispute therefore involves more than whether individual officials expressed reservations during the processing of files. It also raises questions about how those comments were reflected in the official record and whether the resulting decisions complied with the applicable procedure.
The Court’s consideration of the matter will depend on the pleadings, relevant records and applicable law.
What Happens to Voters Whose Names Cannot Be Mapped?
The ECI also addressed concerns about voters who cannot be linked to previous electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.
According to the Commission’s affidavit, such voters would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings in person. Booth Level Officers would collect the necessary documents from their homes and upload them to the ECINet platform for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer.
The Commission said hearings would be required only in exceptional cases and should preferably take place online.
This procedure is relevant because documentation and verification can affect how applicants navigate the electoral roll revision process.
The Commission also clarified that names cannot be added to or deleted from electoral rolls on the ECINet platform without an order from the competent Electoral Registration Officer.
It further informed the Court that a committee involving experts from IIT Madras and IISc Bengaluru had been constituted to examine compliance with applicable requirements and review the platform’s functioning.
These measures, as described in the affidavit, concern the administration and verification of electoral records.
What Is the Supreme Court Case About?
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging aspects of the Chief Election Commissioner’s functioning and the legality of certain ECI decisions. The matter was connected with another petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
The petitions raise questions about whether certain SIR-related decisions were taken through the required collective decision-making process. The broader dispute also concerns the additional Form 6 declaration and the records underlying the decisions.
The petitioners have sought judicial intervention concerning the disputed decisions and the conduct of the officials involved. The ECI, meanwhile, has argued that its decisions were unanimous and that the petition is not maintainable because it relies on a newspaper report.
The Supreme Court had previously issued notice in the matter and declined to grant an ex parte interim order suspending the Chief Election Commissioner, as reported by LiveLaw. The Court’s earlier observations should not be treated as a final decision on the merits of all the allegations.
The Commission stated in its October 26 affidavit that it was submitting a short response because of the intervening Dussehra holidays and reserved the right to file a detailed, paragraph-wise counter-affidavit.
Why Does the SIR and Form 6 Dispute Matter?
The dispute has implications for voter registration, the administration of electoral rolls and public understanding of the procedures used to include eligible voters.
For applicants, it is important to understand which forms and declarations apply to their circumstances and what documentation may be requested during the verification process.
For election administration, the case highlights the importance of clear application procedures, accurate records and compliance with the legal framework governing the Election Commission.
It also illustrates why allegations about internal disagreements need to be assessed against official records and the responses of the authorities involved.
The ECI has denied that its SIR decisions were unilateral and maintained that Form 6 was not amended. The petitions, however, challenge aspects of the decision-making process and related procedures. The legal issues should be understood in light of the parties’ submissions and any subsequent judicial orders.
Conclusion
The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were taken unanimously and that the additional SIR declaration did not amend Form 6.
The Commission has also described changes to the online application process intended to distinguish the prescribed form from the separate declaration. It has explained procedures for handling voters who cannot be mapped to earlier electoral rolls.
The matter raises important questions about electoral administration, statutory forms and collective decision-making within the ECI. The Commission’s affidavit sets out its defence, while the petitions challenge aspects of its actions. The outcome depends on the legal proceedings and the Court’s consideration of the relevant issues.
Source: LiveLaw — All SIR Decisions Unanimously Taken; Form 6 Not Amended: ECI Tells Supreme Court
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the ECI tell the Supreme Court about SIR decisions?
The ECI stated that the three disputed SIR-related orders were unanimous decisions of the Commission.
2. Did the Election Commission amend Form 6?
The ECI denied amending Form 6. It said the additional declaration used during SIR was a separate document and not a formal amendment to the prescribed form.
3. What is Form 6 used for?
Form 6 is used by eligible individuals to apply for inclusion in an electoral roll.
4. Why is the SIR declaration controversial?
The dispute concerns the additional information requested from applicants and whether the declaration was introduced in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The ECI says it is separate from Form 6.
5. What happens if a voter cannot be mapped to an earlier electoral roll?
According to the ECI’s affidavit, Booth Level Officers would ordinarily collect the required documents from such voters and upload them for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer. In-person hearings would generally not be required, except in certain cases.
6. Has the Supreme Court finally decided the dispute?
The October 26, 2026 report describes the ECI’s response in the ongoing case. It does not report a final judgment resolving all the issues raised in the petitions.
7. Why is this case important?
The case concerns how electoral roll revision decisions are made, the use of additional declarations in voter registration and compliance with the rules governing the Election Commission.
