SIR controversy: Election Commission says all three members approved orders, denies altering Form 6 | Today’s news

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday (October 26) defended its decision to conduct a special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Supreme Court, saying the exercise was conducted in accordance with the law and that all three members of the commission unanimously approved the orders governing its conduct.

In its counter-affidavit filed in the apex court, the probe panel said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were unanimously approved by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vich Singh Sandhu.

The Electoral Commission was responding to petitions alleging that several decisions related to the revision of the electoral roll were taken without the consent of the two electoral commissioners, including alleged changes to Form 6, which is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.

The ECI argued that neither the Act nor the prescribed Form 6 had been amended through the SIR’s orders. She urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitioners’ objections, calling them misunderstood.

The EC says the SIR was carried out on the basis of a constitutional mandate

In its affidavit, the Commission said the SIR exercise was carried out in exercise of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and applicable rules.

Rejecting the claim that Form 6 was altered, 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 the electoral rolls.

According to the Commission, the statement was intended to help verify applicants’ eligibility and establish links between their data and voter lists prepared during previous intensive revisions.

The affidavit states that the declaration format introduced for subsequent stages of SIR has been modified to facilitate the process for applicants. This allowed them to provide details of themselves or their relatives who had appeared in earlier electoral rolls.

Applicants whose details could be linked to previous electoral rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without having to provide additional documents, the Commission said. Persons unable to provide such data or whose records could not be linked would be required to submit prescribed supporting documents.

The ECI also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27 May 2026 in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India and said it recognized the power of the Commission to prescribe a documentary framework for the revision of electoral rolls.

Booth Level Clerks to assist applicants in submission of documents

The commission said it decided to ease the process for voters who could not be mapped to previous voter rolls or whose records contained discrepancies.

As per the arrangement described in the affidavit, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will visit applicants’ homes to collect documents. These would then be uploaded for review by voter registration officials.

The ECI also clarified that the SIR exercise will not prevent eligible individuals from applying for enrollment after its completion. The regular process of updating electoral rolls will continue as per the applicable rules.

Read also | The Electoral Roll Review Problem: Why We Must Go by Evidence and Not Claims

The Supreme Court said it would review the EC’s decision

The affidavit comes after the Supreme Court said on October 5 that it would review decisions taken by the Election Commission and overturn those found to be contrary to the law. The court issued a notice to the Center and the jury on the petitions.

PTI said the pleas followed a report by The Indian Express published on September 25, which said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections to SIR decisions and orders at least 14 times in the previous 10 months.

According to the report, both commissioners objected that some decisions were made without their knowledge or advice.

The allegation sparked protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), who demanded the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, said its counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court was unanimously approved by the CEC and two election commissioners.

The poll panel also argued that the CEC could not be restricted in the exercise of its functions on the basis of news reports and argued that such reports do not amount to evidence in the eyes of law.

Read also | ECI SIR row: Why UP orders review of Forms 6, 7 and 8 from April 10