SIR controversy: Election Commission says all three members approved orders, denies amending Form 6

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused review of electoral rolls. The Election Commission uses it to check who is eligible to be enrolled and to update voter records. It matters because accurate rolls help ensure that eligible people can apply for inclusion while records are examined carefully.

In this exercise, applicants submit Form 6 along with a separate declaration. The declaration can provide details of the applicant or relatives appearing in earlier electoral rolls. If those details can be linked, the applicant may avoid submitting additional documents. If they cannot be linked, supporting documents may be required.

The Election Commission said the SIR was conducted under Article 324, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and applicable rules. It also said regular enrolment would continue after the exercise, so eligible people would not permanently lose the opportunity to apply.

The Election Commission said its three members unanimously approved the orders governing the Special Intensive Revision. This directly addressed petitions alleging that important decisions had been taken without the knowledge or approval of the two Election Commissioners. The issue matters because the petitions questioned how the electoral-roll exercise was authorised and implemented.

The orders identified by the Commission were issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. They concerned the implementation of the SIR. The Commission said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi all approved them.

The ECI also said its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court was unanimously approved by all three members. It urged the court to reject the petitioners’ claims, calling them misconceived. The court will examine decisions challenged in the petitions and annul any found contrary to law.

Form 6 is the statutory application used by a person seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. Its role matters because petitioners alleged that the Election Commission had changed the form during the SIR without proper approval. The Commission rejected that claim and said neither the law nor Form 6 had been amended.

The ECI described the SIR declaration as a separate document. It was intended to help verify an applicant’s eligibility and connect the applicant’s details with electoral rolls prepared during earlier intensive revisions. Applicants could provide details of themselves or relatives appearing in those earlier rolls.

If a link was established, the declaration could be submitted with Form 6 without extra documents. Applicants whose details could not be linked would need supporting documents as prescribed. The Commission said later versions of the declaration were modified to make the process easier, but Form 6 itself remained unchanged.

Three members make up the Election Commission in this dispute: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The number matters because the ECI said all three unanimously approved the SIR orders and its Supreme Court counter-affidavit.

The disagreement concerned allegations that some decisions were issued without the knowledge or recommendation of Sandhu and Joshi. A report cited by PTI said the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions during the preceding 10 months. Those objections reportedly involved decisions and orders connected with the SIR.

The ECI rejected the petitioners’ contentions and said the relevant orders had unanimous approval. It also argued that the Chief Election Commissioner should not be restrained based on newspaper reports, which it said do not constitute evidence in law. The Supreme Court has said it will examine the challenged decisions.

The SIR process gives applicants two possible routes for verification. They can provide details linking themselves or relatives to an earlier electoral roll, or they can submit supporting documents prescribed by the Election Commission. This matters because the Commission used these routes to check eligibility without requiring the same paperwork from everyone.

For example, an applicant whose details cannot be linked to a previous roll would have to provide the required documents. The ECI said booth-level officers could visit applicants’ homes to collect documents. The material would then be uploaded for electoral registration officers to consider.

The article does not specify what final decision would follow if an applicant could neither establish a link nor provide the required documents. It only explains that supporting documents would be required in such cases. The regular enrolment process would continue after the SIR, allowing eligible people to apply later.

The Election Commission said the SIR would not close the door on eligible people who were missed during the exercise. After the revision is completed, the regular process for updating electoral rolls will continue under the applicable rules. This matters because an applicant’s omission during the intensive exercise would not, by itself, end the opportunity to seek enrolment.

An eligible person can therefore apply through the ordinary enrolment process after the SIR. The article does not give a new form, deadline, or separate procedure for this later application. It only states that the regular process will remain available under the applicable rules.

The assurance came in the ECI’s counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court. The Commission was defending its documentation framework and the SIR process against petitions challenging several decisions. Its position was that the revision and the continuing regular process together provide routes for eligible applicants to be considered.

The Election Commission said its responsibility for the SIR rests on Article 324 of the Constitution. It also relied on the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules. Together, these were presented as the legal foundation for preparing and revising electoral rolls.

The Commission said the SIR was undertaken while discharging this constitutional mandate. It used the exercise to verify applicants’ eligibility and, where possible, connect their information with earlier electoral rolls. The ECI also cited a Supreme Court judgment dated May 27, 2026, which it said recognised its authority to prescribe a documentation framework for roll revision.

This legal basis is central to the dispute. Petitioners challenged decisions linked to the SIR, including alleged changes to Form 6. The ECI argued that the law and Form 6 had not been amended. It asked the Supreme Court to reject the challenges, while the court said it would annul decisions found contrary to law.