ECI tells Supreme Court all 3 SIR orders were unanimous, denies CEC acted alone

The ECI told the Supreme Court that the three SIR-related orders were unanimous decisions of its three-member Commission. This directly rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had made the decisions unilaterally. The Commission said the allegations relied entirely on one news report.

The ECI also said the CEC and both Election Commissioners unanimously approved the affidavit filed in court. It explained that files are usually examined first by one Election Commissioner, then the other, before reaching the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals may be given electronically and recorded later.

The Commission stressed that internal suggestions, observations and queries are not formal decisions. It said only an approved decision of the Commission counts under Section 18 of the 2023 law. The ECI also said it had not released or authorised any internal note or file for the media.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused review of electoral rolls. It checks voter information and helps identify records that need updating, verification or supporting documents. The purpose is to maintain an accurate list of eligible voters. The article discusses SIR mainly through its orders, forms and procedures rather than giving a formal definition.

In this case, the ECI described a separate SIR declaration alongside Form 6, which is used for voter registration. It also said booth-level officers would collect necessary documents from homes when voter details could not be mapped during the revision. Hearings would be reserved for exceptional cases and preferably held online.

The ECI said three SIR orders were issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026. It maintained that all were unanimous. The process therefore involved forms, document collection, mapping and safeguards, rather than an automatic requirement for every affected voter to attend a hearing.

The ECI identified three SIR orders as unanimous decisions of the Commission. This mattered because petitions before the Supreme Court questioned the CEC’s functioning and alleged unilateral decision-making. The Commission’s response was that each order had the agreement of all three members.

The orders were issued at three different points: June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026. The ECI also said the CEC and both Election Commissioners unanimously approved the affidavit responding to the petitions. It described the Commission as a three-member body whose files move through its members before a decision.

The ECI’s position was that internal discussion should not be confused with formal action. Suggestions, observations and queries during file processing do not become decisions under Section 18 of the 2023 law. The Commission also denied releasing or authorising any internal note or file to the media.

India’s Election Commission described a sequential process for handling files. A matter is generally examined first by one Election Commissioner, then by the other, and finally placed before the Chief Election Commissioner. This process allows all three members to consider the matter before the Commission acts.

The ECI said urgent matters may be approved electronically. Those approvals are then recorded on the file. It gave this explanation while rejecting claims that Gyanesh Kumar made SIR decisions alone. The Commission said the CEC and both Election Commissioners had unanimously approved the relevant affidavit and orders.

The key distinction is between discussion and decision. Suggestions, observations or queries raised while a file is being processed are not formal decisions under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The ECI said only an authorised Commission decision has that status.

The ECI said voters whose details could not be mapped during the revision would not ordinarily have to attend hearings. This was presented as a way to reduce the burden on voters while still collecting documents needed for the electoral-roll review. Hearings would be used only in exceptional cases.

Booth-level officers, or BLOs, would collect necessary documents from voters’ homes. The ECI said exceptional hearings should preferably be conducted online. It also said no voter could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll through ECINet without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer, or ERO.

The Commission added that an expert committee involving the IITs and the Indian Institute of Science was examining compliance with prescribed safeguards. These measures were described amid concerns about the revision process and ECINet. Together, they show the ECI’s stated approach: home collection, limited hearings and official approval for roll changes.

Form 6 is used for voter registration, and the ECI told the court that the form itself had not been amended. It said only the Centre had authority to change the prescribed form. This distinction mattered because petitioners had challenged changes connected with the SIR application process.

The ECI said the declaration required for SIR was a separate document, not an amendment to Form 6. However, it acknowledged that the online presentation could be interpreted as changing the form. In the physical application, Form 6 and the declaration were already separate.

To remove that confusion, the ECI said the online application would be split into Form 6 and a separate declaration from October 21. The Commission’s position was therefore that the legal form had not changed, but its digital presentation had created an appearance of change that needed correction.

An electoral roll is the official list of people registered to vote in a particular electoral area. It provides the basic record used to identify voters during elections. Accurate rolls help ensure that eligible voters are included and that records are correctly maintained. The article discusses this task through the ECI’s SIR process.

The ECI said SIR-related checks could involve mapping voter details, collecting documents and handling exceptional hearings. It also said that no name could be added to or deleted from a roll through ECINet without an Electoral Registration Officer’s order. These procedures are intended to place changes under official review.

Keeping the roll accurate is essential to representative democracy because elections depend on a reliable record of voters. The article highlights both access and safeguards: BLOs could collect documents at home, while an expert committee would examine ECINet compliance. These details show why roll revisions can have significant consequences.