ECI tells SC all SIR decisions unanimous; says Form 6 not amended

The Election Commission of India said its three members jointly approved all decisions concerning the special intensive revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. It rejected claims that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted alone. The Commission also denied changing Form 6, the statutory application used by new voters.

The ECI identified three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. It said each followed a unanimous decision and complied with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 law. For Form 6 applicants, it prescribed an additional declaration alongside the form. That document was first called Annexure D and later Annexure IV.

The affidavit says the declaration helped applicants link themselves or relatives to earlier electoral rolls. Where those details were supplied, applicants could avoid supporting documents during claims and objections. The Commission called contrary allegations erroneous and said the challenges to its functioning were not legally maintainable.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a broad and detailed exercise to recheck an electoral roll. It can verify existing entries, identify changes, and ensure that the list reflects eligible voters. This matters because electoral rolls determine who can participate in elections. The article identifies SIR as the exercise challenged before the Supreme Court.

Unlike a routine update, an intensive revision involves more extensive verification. In this case, the ECI required an additional declaration from people seeking enrolment as new voters. The declaration could connect applicants, or their relatives, with earlier intensive revisions. That information was intended to support the claims and objections process.

The article does not define every procedural difference between SIR and routine updating. In general, routine updates handle continuing corrections, additions, and deletions, while an intensive revision reassesses the roll more comprehensively. Here, the legality of the nationwide SIR depends partly on whether the Commission authorised it collectively and lawfully.

Form 6 is the statutory form used by people applying to be enrolled as new voters. It gives election authorities the information needed to process an enrolment request. The article places Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, making the dispute over any change legally important.

During the SIR, the ECI prescribed an additional declaration alongside Form 6. Under the June 2025 order, it was called Annexure D. Later orders replaced it with Annexure IV. The declaration allowed applicants to provide details linking themselves or relatives with earlier electoral rolls.

The ECI says this arrangement did not amend Form 6. It was a separate document created through the Commission’s orders. If applicants supplied the relevant earlier-roll information, they could avoid submitting supporting documents during the claims and objections stage. If they lacked or withheld those details, supporting documents could still be required.

Three members make up the Election Commission in this case. They are Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The number matters because the dispute concerns whether major decisions reflected the Commission as a whole, rather than one member’s view.

Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, says the Commission should take decisions unanimously as far as possible. If the members disagree, their differences must be resolved by majority. The ECI says discussions, questions, or objections during deliberations do not themselves become formal decisions.

According to the affidavit, formal decisions are made at commissioners’ meetings or on noted files and carry their signatures. The petitioners argue that collective decision-making cannot be created simply through later approval. The ECI disputes that view and says the three SIR orders reflected unanimous decisions made under Section 18.

The central legal issue is whether the SIR was authorised through the Commission’s required collective process. The ECI says all three orders were unanimous and complied with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. Petitioners argue that individual objections and later approval cannot replace genuine collective decision-making.

If the Supreme Court accepts that argument, it could find that the SIR orders were not validly made. That could undermine the legal basis for steps taken under those orders, including the procedures used to revise rolls and process new-voter applications. The exact remedy would depend on the court’s ruling.

The current affidavit strongly rejects the allegations. It says suggestions or objections during deliberations are not decisions under Section 18. It also says correspondence about an officer’s deputation and work allocation does not prove that SIR decisions lacked concurrence. The court’s scrutiny will determine whether the exercise can continue in its existing form.

The declaration was designed to make the enrolment process easier for applicants who could connect themselves or relatives with earlier electoral rolls. This matters because claims and objections are the stage when enrolment information can be examined and challenged. The ECI says the declaration was not a change to Form 6.

Under the June 2025 SIR order, the document was called Annexure D. The later orders substituted Annexure IV. Applicants could use it to provide details connecting them with previous intensive revisions. If the necessary information was available and supplied, the ECI said they could avoid furnishing supporting documents during the claims and objections process.

The arrangement was not an automatic exemption for everyone. The affidavit says applicants who could not provide the details, or chose not to provide them, might still need supporting documents. Thus, the declaration could reduce paperwork for some applicants while leaving document requirements in place for others.

Article 324 places the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission. In this dispute, the ECI cites Article 324 as part of the constitutional basis for its SIR orders. The article does not give a fuller explanation of Article 324’s wording, but it identifies the provision as central to the Commission’s authority.

An electoral roll is the official list used to identify people entitled to participate in an election. Accuracy matters in two directions. Eligible voters should not be wrongly left out, and inaccurate or duplicate entries should not undermine confidence in the list. The SIR was intended to examine electoral-roll information, with declarations linking applicants to earlier rolls.

The legal question is not only whether accurate rolls matter, but whether the ECI used its authority correctly. The Commission says its three SIR orders followed unanimous decisions and complied with Article 324. Petitioners seek judicial scrutiny of that claim and of the Commission’s internal process.