New Delhi: The Congress has issued a six-point rebuttal to the affidavit submitted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the Supreme Court on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
In its rebuttal, the Congress party accused the poll body of “patent deception” over Form 6 and unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The Congress also spoke of alleged irregularities in the use of the ECI’s digital platform ECINET.
In a statement Tuesday, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh described the ECI’s affidavit as “deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous and extremely damaging—to itself”.
The six points raised by Ramesh concerned the declaration attached to Form 6, approval of SIR orders, alleged centralisation of electoral-roll management through ECINET, functioning of EC’s IT division, alleged misuse of Form 7, and what the Congress described as the affidavit’s failure to deny media revelations about alleged irregularities.
The Election Commission’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court last evening is deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous. It is also extremely damaging—to itself.
1. Illegal amendment of Form 6: The ECI has engaged in patent deception and word games on this point. First, it claimed…
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) October 27, 2026
On Form 6, the Congress accused the ECI of changing its position on the additional declaration introduced during the first phase of SIR.
“First, it claimed that the new declaration attached to Form 6 was upheld by the Supreme Court, which the Court subsequently contradicted. Second, it now claims that the new declaration form is separate, and Form 6 was not amended,” Ramesh wrote on X
“But this is a deception—Form 6 could not be submitted online without filling this mandatory declaration,” he added.
Ramesh also said the ECI had stated on 26 September that the declaration was attached to Form 6, but was now claiming that it was separate. “The ECI cannot cover up its blatant violation of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960,” he said.
He also disputed the ECI’s claim that the three Election Commissioners had unanimously approved relevant orders relating to the SIR. “The two ECs objected on record to grave violations and illegal actions taking place on the orders of the CEC—their objections were disregarded,” Ramesh wrote.
“The ECs were not even informed and learnt of these decisions from the news. This is not unanimity but unilateral decision-making,” he added.
Ramesh further said that the ECINET was used to centralise control over electoral rolls and override Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
“The use of ECINET to centralise control over electoral rolls and override the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are the statutory authority, was put on file by the 2 ECs—instances from Goa, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand present,” he wrote on X.
Ramesh also said the two Election Commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary over concerns about ECINET and the division’s functioning. “The ECs repeatedly expressed concern that the IT division operates opaquely, oversteps its mandate and takes unauthorised actions,” he said.
“There has been no change in its operation, nor any action on these issues,” he added.
On the SIR exercise, Ramesh said that “numerous illegalities and violations” had emerged across states.
“The affidavit does not deny the veracity of the ongoing revelations in large sections of the media,” Ramesh said, calling this “another confirmation of the gross malpractice and legal violations by the CEC”.
In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the ECI maintained that the three major SIR orders were approved unanimously by all three Election Commissioners. It denied amending Form 6, arguing that the additional declaration was a separate document.
The poll panel also said that notes, queries and suggestions recorded by individual commissioners during the processing of files did not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission. It maintained that no name could be added to, deleted from or modified in electoral rolls without an order from the concerned ERO.
The ECI also rejected the allegations against its decision-making process, and defended the legality of the SIR orders.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: All of the eight past SIRs upped the electorate. Why this is the only time voter numbers shrank