Commission’s Claim: All Three Orders Issued Unanimously
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Monday night, the Election Commission said that all three orders related to the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) issued between June 2025 and May 2026 were issued unanimously and were in line with the law. The affidavit, signed by a Deputy Election Commissioner, has been filed jointly on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner and both Election Commissioners.
The response is to a public interest litigation (PIL) that accuses Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of taking unilateral decisions on the SIR. According to the petition, these decisions led to 13.36 crore names being removed in the draft phase of the electoral rolls.
Contradiction: Clash with the Indian Express Report
According to Bar & Bench, the Commission also said the affidavit had the unanimous approval of all three members. However, according to an Indian Express report, both Election Commissioners had openly recorded disagreement on several matters related to the SIR. This PIL was filed after that report.
Hearing
On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant will hear this petition along with other petitions related to the SIR. The Commission has described the petition as based on wrong assumptions and resting entirely on a newspaper report.
The Form 6 Controversy
Commission’s stand: The Commission has denied amending Form 6. According to it, it only streamlined the format of the declaration used in the Bihar SIR, which was attached separately to Form 6. The aim was to speed up the process and map voters who could not be mapped during the Bihar SIR.
Indian Express report: In May, Commissioner Vivek Joshi had said the form could not be changed without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu had also agreed, yet the online form was changed. Sandhu learned of this from a newspaper in July, and in August he called the declaration “unauthorised/illegal.”
Affidavit’s admission: The Commission accepts that the online declaration could have appeared as if Form 6 had been amended. To correct this, it was decided on October 21 that the SIR declaration would be kept separate from Form 6 in the online application process.
Questions That Remain
Who made the online change? The affidavit does not say who approved the online arrangement in July or who added the declaration.
A play on words? Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj has asked: the affidavit says the declaration is not part of Form 6, yet the Commission’s September 26, 2026 press release described it as attached to Form 6. Is the Commission playing with words to avoid accountability?
West Bengal appeals: According to the affidavit, appeals against orders restoring voters to the rolls were filed by officials of the state Chief Electoral Officer’s office, and these matters were “not brought to the Commission’s notice.” Yet, according to the record, when Joshi and Sandhu asked, state officials said they had no details of the matter. The affidavit now says officials of that office filed the appeals, and the two accounts do not appear to reconcile.
