New Delhi, Oct. 26 -- The Election Commission on Monday told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was undertaken in accordance with the law with the three orders on its roll-out approved unanimously by the Commission's three members, and rejected the contention that Form 6 had been amended.
The Election Commission stated this in its response to pleas alleging that it took several decisions without the approval of the two election commissioners, including "changes" in Form 6.
Rejecting the allegations regarding changes to 'Form 6, the Commission clarified that none of the three SIR orders have resulted in any changes to the statutory 'Form 6' used for voter registration.
However, the EC affidavit is silent on the disclosures made recently in a RTI reply that the two Election Commissioners had written separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary objecting to the conduct of a senior EC official.
The law and prescribed Form 6 for voter registration were not amended, the poll panel said in its counter-affidavit filed in the apex court with unanimous approval of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and two Election Commissioners. The EC urged the court to reject the petitioner's contentions, describing them as misconceived.
The EC said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by the Commission's three members, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners.
It said that the CEC cannot be restrained from functioning as newspaper reports are not considered as evidence in the eyes of the law.
Earlier on October 5, the apex court said it will examine all decisions of the EC and annul those found not to be in accordance with law, as it issued notices to the Centre and the poll body.
The pleas were filed after Indian Express reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The claim has sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding removal of CEC Kumar.
In its counter-affidavit, the EC said the SIR exercise was undertaken in the discharge of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules.
The EC said the declaration format introduced for the subsequent phases of SIR was a modification of the earlier format, intended to make the process easier for applicants by allowing them to provide details of themselves or their relatives appearing in previous electoral rolls.
According to the affidavit, applicants whose details could be linked with earlier electoral rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without additional documents. Those unable to provide such details or whose records could not be linked would be required to submit supporting documents as prescribed.
The EC also relied on the Supreme Court's May 27, 2026, judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India case, which, it said, recognised the EC's authority to prescribe a documentation framework for the revision of electoral rolls.
The affidavit further stated that the EC had decided to facilitate the process for electors who could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls or whose records contained discrepancies.
Booth-level officers would visit their homes to collect documents, which would be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.
The EC said the exercise did not prevent eligible persons from applying for enrolment after the completion of SIR, adding that the regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules.
Apart from asserting that all decisions were unanimous, the EC affidavit did not mention anything about Election Commissioners, Dr. Sandhu and Dr. Joshi, writing separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29, 2026, objecting to the conduct of a senior Commission official and seeking appropriate action, as per records released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show.
RTI reply, earlier this week, showed that the Cabinet Secretariat refrained from taking any action on complaints sent by two Election Commissioners against the conduct of an officer in the Commission, noting that the communications were in their "individual capacity" and in the absence of "any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate."
The Indian Express had reported in September that Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan after issuance of a work allocation order within the poll body that "threatened to concentrate the powers" at the Election Commission centrally to add or delete names and update records in the voters' list rather than allowing officials at the state level.
In a statement on September 26, the Election Commission (EC) had said that the work redistribution orders issued by the officer concerned were never implemented following directions from the two Commissioners.
The poll panel had said that the letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary pertained to an officer on deputation, rather than policy or IT division matters.
The Cabinet Secretary had acknowledged the receipt of the two letters on August 5, 2026, and marked copies to the Department of Personnel and Training, the Establishment Officer and the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The letters, addressed to the Cabinet Secretary, concerned senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and an order he issued revising the allocation of work among senior officers. The two Commissioners alleged that the changes were made without prior discussion with the Commission or the officers concerned.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.