EC says apex court unanimously approved SIR rollout orders; Form 6 unchanged

New Delhi: On Monday, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was carried out in accordance with the law, and that the three orders issued for its rollout were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission. It also rejected the allegation that Form 6 had been amended. The Commission made this position clear in its response to petitions claiming that several decisions, including alleged “changes” in Form 6, were taken without the approval of the two election commissioners.

In its counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, and approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners, the poll body said neither the law nor the prescribed Form 6 for voter registration had been amended. The EC further said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were all approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members — the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners. It also argued that the CEC could not be restrained from functioning merely on the basis of newspaper reports, since such reports are not treated as evidence in the eyes of law.

Earlier, on October 5, the Supreme Court said it would examine all decisions of the Election Commission and set aside any that were not in accordance with the law, while issuing notices to the Centre and the poll body. The petitions were filed after an Indian Express report on September 25 claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR of electoral rolls, which they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The allegation triggered protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party, which demanded the removal of CEC Kumar.

In its affidavit, the EC said the SIR exercise was undertaken in fulfilment of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the relevant rules. Rejecting the claim that Form 6 had been altered through the SIR orders, the Commission said the declaration prescribed for the exercise was a separate document and not part of the statutory form used for inclusion in the electoral roll. It added that the declaration was meant to help verify applicants’ eligibility and to link their details with electoral rolls prepared during earlier intensive revisions.

The EC said the declaration format introduced for the later phases of SIR was only a revised version of the earlier one, designed to make the process simpler by allowing applicants to furnish details about themselves or their relatives who appeared in previous electoral rolls. According to the affidavit, applicants whose details could be matched with earlier rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without any additional documents. Those who could not provide such details, or whose records could not be linked, would have to submit supporting documents as prescribed.

The Commission also cited the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India case, saying it had recognised the EC’s power to prescribe a documentation framework for revising electoral rolls. The affidavit further said the EC had decided to ease the process for electors who could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls, or whose records contained discrepancies. Booth-level officers would visit such voters at home to collect documents, which would then be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.

The EC also said the exercise would not stop eligible people from applying for enrolment after the completion of SIR, and that the regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules. The Commission urged the court to reject the petitioner’s arguments, calling them misconceived. Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily