Supreme Court Scrutinizes Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision Process

On October 26 2026 the Election Commission of India filed a joint counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders dated June 24 2025, October 27 2025 and May 14 2026. The affidavit, signed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, said the SIR decisions were taken “unanimously” under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023. It denied any amendment to voter-registration Form 6 and explained that an additional “declaration” required for the SIR was a separate document. The filing responded to petitions first noticed by the Court on October 5 2026 that seek to restrain the CEC and question the legality of the SIR exercise.

All SIR decisions taken ‘unanimously’, no changes made to Form 6: Election Commission to Supreme Court Hindustan TimesForm 6 unchanged, online SIR form and declaration separated from Oct 21: EC to SC Election Commission tells Supreme Court SIR was lawful and unanimously approved EC tells Supreme Court SIR orders were lawful and unanimously approved No Change To Form 6, Declaration Is Separate: Poll Body To Top Court Election Commission tells Supreme Court SIR orders had unanimous approval The Indian Express'Newspaper report not evidence': How ECI is defending SIR and Form 6 row in Supreme Court New Indian Express

The SIR is a constitutionally mandated roll-clean-up under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act 1950, aimed at deleting duplicate, absent, shifted or deceased voters. A September 25 2026 investigation by *The Indian Express* reported that Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi lodged at least fourteen written objections, alleging that key SIR decisions—including the online declaration and appeals against voter inclusions—were taken without their knowledge. The report prompted petitions by activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi, and street protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party.

EC tells Supreme Court SIR orders were lawful and unanimously approved

The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, emphasized that:

Election Commission tells SC all SIR decisions taken unanimously, 'Form 6' not amended

• Decisions are recorded only after files circulate through the three commissioners and bear their signatures; suggestions or queries by any commissioner “do not constitute a decision” under Section 18.

Poll Body's 'Unanimous' Defence In Supreme Court Over SIR Row

• Form 6, prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, can be amended only by the Central Government; the SIR “declaration” is an independent document.

No Change To Form 6, Declaration Is Separate: Poll Body To Top Court

• An internal work-allocation order issued on July 28 2026 was never implemented after Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi issued a joint direction on July 30 2026.

Form 6 unchanged, online SIR form and declaration separated from Oct 21: EC to SC

• ECINet is the tool through which Electoral Registration Officers act; no entry is added, deleted or modified except by an order of the Electoral Registration Officer.

The Indian Express

Opposition figures—including Rahul Gandhi, Asaduddin Owaisi, and Menaka Guruswamy—argue that the CEC exercised “collective powers” unilaterally, violating the unanimity requirement of Section 18. *The Indian Express* contended that the online version of Form 6 was altered in July 2026 to include a declaration, describing the change as “unauthorised” and “illegal”. Activists also cite a Right-to-Information response dated October 16 2026 that invoked trade-secret exemptions to refuse disclosure of the software used for voter-list verification.

ThePrint

• Form 6 amendment: The ECI maintains Form 6 was not amended, while *The Indian Express* and *The Wire* say the online integration of the declaration could be read as an amendment made without statutory notification.

The Indian Express

• Authorization of West Bengal appeals: The affidavit says appeals were filed by officers of the state Chief Electoral Officer under Supreme Court directions; petitioners question who authorised those appeals on behalf of the ECI.

Hindustan TimesThe Indian ExpressThe Indian ExpressThe Wire - IndiaThePrintThe Indian ExpressECI rejects unilateral action charge against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, tells Supreme Court all three SIR orders were unanimous ECI denies unilateral decision-making by Gyanesh Kumar, says all 3 SIR orders unanimous

• Internal objections: Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi claim they were kept “in the dark” about several SIR actions; the Commission argues internal notes are part of deliberation, not final decisions.

The Indian Express