Election Commission Defends Electoral Roll Revision in Supreme Court
Election Commission's Justification
File image of Indian Supreme Court (Photo: @airnewsalerts/X)
New Delhi, Oct 27: On Monday, the Election Commission of India defended its decision regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Supreme Court, asserting that the process was conducted in compliance with legal standards and that all three members of the Commission unanimously approved the rollout orders.
The Commission clarified that there were no amendments made to the law or Form 6 for voter registration, countering claims that decisions were made without the consent of the two Election Commissioners, particularly regarding changes to Form 6.
According to the EC, the counter-affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court received unanimous approval from Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners.
The Commission stated that the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025; October 27, 2025; and May 14, 2026, were all approved by the three members of the Commission.
Furthermore, the EC emphasized that the CEC cannot be restricted from performing his duties, as media reports do not constitute legal evidence. Previously, on October 5, the Supreme Court indicated it would review all EC decisions and annul any that were found to be unlawful, issuing notices to both the government and the Election Commission.
The petitions were prompted by a report from Indian Express on September 25, which revealed that EC members Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on record at least 14 times over the past ten months regarding decisions related to the SIR of electoral rolls, claiming these were made without their knowledge or input.
This situation has led to protests from opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), who are calling for the removal of CEC Kumar. In its counter-affidavit, the EC stated that the SIR process was executed as part of its constitutional responsibilities under Article 324 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and relevant regulations.
The Commission rejected claims that Form 6 had been altered through the SIR orders, explaining that the declaration required for the process was a distinct document and not part of the statutory form for electoral roll inclusion.
This declaration was designed to assist in verifying applicants' eligibility and linking their information with previously prepared electoral rolls.
The EC noted that the new declaration format introduced for later phases of the SIR was a revision of the earlier format, aimed at simplifying the process for applicants by allowing them to provide details about themselves or relatives listed in earlier electoral rolls.
According to the affidavit, applicants whose information could be matched with previous electoral rolls could submit the declaration alongside Form 6 without needing additional documentation.
Conversely, those who could not provide such details or whose records could not be matched would need to submit the required supporting documents. The EC also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling on May 27, 2026, in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus ECI case, which affirmed the Commission's authority to establish a documentation framework for electoral roll revisions.
The affidavit further indicated that the Commission aimed to ease the process for voters who could not be linked to previous electoral rolls or whose records had discrepancies. Booth-level officers would visit these individuals' homes to collect necessary documents, which would then be uploaded for review by electoral registration officers.
The Commission assured that the SIR exercise would not hinder eligible individuals from applying for enrollment after its completion, and the standard process for updating electoral rolls would continue as per the applicable regulations. The EC urged the court to dismiss the petitioners' claims, labeling them as misguided.