SIR decisions were unanimous, Form 6 unchanged: EC tells Supreme Court

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, Oct 27, 2026: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the full Commission. It has also argued that a petition challenging the functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), based entirely on a single news report, is not maintainable.

In a counter-affidavit filed in response to a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh, alias Rakesh Singh, the poll panel said the affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

The response addresses allegations that the Commission took decisions without the approval of both Election Commissioners, including alleged changes to Form 6, used for the inclusion of new voters in electoral rolls.

The ECI maintained that all three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions of the full Commission.

It clarified that notes, queries or suggestions recorded by the CEC or Election Commissioners during the processing of files do not constitute decisions of the Commission.

According to the affidavit, files ordinarily move from one Election Commissioner to the other before reaching the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals are obtained electronically and subsequently recorded in the physical file. The Commission also warned that officials issuing orders beyond their delegated powers would face action.

Addressing a controversy over a work allocation order issued on July 28, the ECI said the order was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day. After the two commissioners jointly issued a direction on July 30, the order was never implemented, the affidavit stated.

On the alleged changes to Form 6, the Commission asserted that the statutory form had not been amended, noting that only the Union government could amend such forms. The declaration required during the SIR exercise was a separate document, it said.

The ECI acknowledged that the online presentation of the application could be interpreted as an amendment. It said that, from October 21, the online application process would separate Form 6 from the additional declaration to match the physical application format.

The affidavit also clarified that voters whose details could not be mapped during the revision process would not be required to attend hearings. Booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect the necessary documents from their homes, it said.

Regarding the ECINet system, the Commission emphasised that no voter’s name could be added to or deleted from the electoral rolls without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer.

The ECI also addressed specific cases raised in public discussions. In West Bengal, appeals challenging the inclusion of voters had been filed by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer under earlier Supreme Court directions, but the matters had not been brought to the Commission’s notice.

In Goa, of 97 voters reportedly left out of the rolls, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports, according to the affidavit.

The Commission argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable.