Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Scrutinizes Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of Voter Rolls
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Dispute Over SIR Orders and Form 6
Petitions before the Supreme Court allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar authorised three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders—June 24 2025, Oct 27 2025 and May 14 2026—without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Challengers also contend that the online version of Form 6 was effectively amended during the Bihar SIR, contrary to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court has deferred a final ruling, giving petitioners ten days to reply to the Commission’s affidavit and scheduling further arguments for Nov 5 and Nov 17.
Legal and Procedural Background
The SIR exercise is presented by the Election Commission (EC) as a constitutionally mandated update of electoral rolls under Article 324 and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 (Sec. 18). Sec. 18 requires decisions “unanimously as far as possible” and, where disagreement exists, by majority. The EC’s affidavit asserts that the three SIR orders were approved unanimously and that Form 6 itself was not amended; a separate “declaration” was attached to enable a single-OTP e-signature filing.
Data & Scale of the Revision
- The EC’s RTI response notes that 13 crore voters have been excluded during the SIR.
- In Maharashtra, ?20 million of the state’s ?98 million voters were removed from draft rolls, with 1.22 crore flagged for “logical discrepancies.”
- Sandhu and Joshi recorded 14 written objections over ten months.
Official Position of the Election Commission
The EC’s 248-page affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, states that:
- All three SIR orders were “unanimously approved” by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.
- No amendment was made to statutory Form 6; the additional “declaration” is a separate document.
- Files are routed sequentially through the commissioners, with urgent approvals possible electronically.
- No entry in ECINet can be altered except by an order of the competent Electoral Registration Officer.
- A committee of experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru was created on Oct 14 to review ECINet compliance.
Opposition Criticism
- Jairam Ramesh, Congress general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP, called the affidavit “deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous” and warned it is “extremely damaging — to itself.”
- Menaka Guruswamy, senior advocate for Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen, accused the EC of “audacity” in defending alleged tampering with Form 6, noting the Bihar SIR concerned citizenship and caste, not Form 6.
On-the-Ground Protests
On Oct 2, a united opposition march to the EC’s Nirvachan Sadan was met with police detentions of dozens of leaders, including Rahul Gandhi. Civil-society delegations seeking a meeting with the commissioners were also barred.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Form 6 amendment – The EC maintains the statutory form was unchanged; opposition argues the online merger created a de-facto amendment.
- Unanimity of decisions – The EC’s affidavit asserts unanimous approval; petitioners cite Sandhu and Joshi’s objections and claim unilateral action.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court will revisit the matter on Nov 5 and, after petitioners’ replies, on Nov 17. It will scrutinise the SIR orders, the alleged Form 6 changes, and the EC’s internal decision-making process. The EC has indicated readiness to submit a detailed point-by-point response after the Dussehra holidays.