New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) Monday maintained that the three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders, issued between June 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous and in accordance with the legal framework.
The poll body took this stand Monday night in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, in response to a petition that accuses Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar of taking unilateral decisions on SIR, which led to deletion of 13.36 crore names from voter rolls in the draft stage. The affidavit, signed by the Deputy Election Commissioner, is a joint one filed on behalf of the CEC and two Election Commissioners (ECs).
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed following reports in The Indian Express that said the two ECs had opposed changes to Form 6 by the polling body, arguing that changes to it could only be made by the central government.
The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to hear Tuesday the PIL and other petitions related to the SIR, which has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks.
The ECI has also challenged the maintainability of the petition, describing it as misconceived, saying it is based solely on a single newspaper report.
In its affidavit, the poll panel further denied amending Form 6, the statutory form used to apply for inclusion in the voters’ list. It said the panel simply rationalised the format of the declaration form that was used during the Bihar SIR. This, it said, was done to expedite the process and undertake mapping that could not happen during the intensive revision of the electoral roll in Bihar. As a result, the voters there had to submit necessary documents along with Form 6 during the claims and objections stage, the poll panel said.
The affidavit defended the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls, while addressing questions over how decisions were taken by the Election Commission and whether communications issued in its name had necessary approval. The affidavit explains the decision-making process, saying the suggestions and differing views of the CEC and ECs are considered before any decision is taken. Decisions are either taken unanimously or by majority, it added.
An observation or a query by any Election Commissioner during this process does not constitute a decision of the Election Commission under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the affidavit submitted. In urgent cases, members have their approval electronically and the same is recorded in the file later, it said.
It went further to state that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were with proper authorisation.
Further, the affidavit accepted that the two ECs had written to the Cabinet Secretary on 29 July 2026 regarding the conduct of an IAS officer of the rank of Additional Secretary, who was posted on deputation to the Election Commission and had a day earlier issued an internal work allocation order. In view of a joint direction by the two ECs, this order was never implemented, the affidavit submitted.
Form 6
To the key allegation that Form 6 was amended in contravention of the law, the affidavit claimed there was no modification of the said form. It argued that the declaration was introduced as a separate document to help verify an applicant’s details and establish a link with earlier electoral rolls.
It said, as per the declaration, applicants can provide details of their own or their parents’ or grandparents’ entries in the previous intensive revisions to establish the link. In case the relevant link is unavailable, then the applicant might be asked to submit prescribed supporting documents.
It added that the format of this declaration form was changed following the ECI’s experience during the Bihar exercise and with an intention to make it easier for applicants.
However, according to it, this did not amount to alteration of Form 6 or the basic requirements for voter registration.
The Commission relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment of May this year, upholding the SIR’s validity, to argue that it could prescribe documents for verifying voter eligibility if the requirements are connected to the objective meant to be achieved, which in the present case was to maintain the integrity of electoral rolls and remain consistent with the law.
According to it, the petitioners had not understood the SC ruling and the body’s constitutional responsibility.
ECI’s affidavit also addressed concerns over possible exclusion of voters, stating the safeguards were built into the revision process. Under it, the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are required to issue notices to those whose names are missing from the draft electoral rolls because their entries cannot be linked to the earlier rolls.
It pointed to ECI’s recent notification by which the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will visit homes of such persons to collect documents and upload them for consideration. Such persons, it added, would not be required to attend physical hearings and that online facility would be provided to them, where it is necessary, camps would be arranged for vulnerable groups, including homeless people and those living in night shelters.
Eligible persons, it said, could continue to apply for inclusion in the roll even after the SIR exercise is over. This would, however, be subject to the rules.
ECI reiterated that Aadhaar does not establish citizenship and that it would be used only as proof of identity.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: All of the eight past SIRs upped the electorate. Why this is the only time voter numbers shrank