Acted ‘unanimously’ on electoral roll revision orders: Election Commission tells Supreme Court

The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that orders scheduling Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls were approved unanimously. The statement addressed questions about the Commission’s functioning and its internal decision-making.

The joint affidavit was filed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It covered SIR orders for states and Union Territories. The Commission presented these decisions as a shared action by all three members.

The statement matters because the Supreme Court was examining the Commission after a September 23 Indian Express report. The affidavit also discussed an internal work-allocation dispute. It said a July 28 order was never implemented after the two Election Commissioners jointly directed that result on July 30.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused review of electoral rolls. In general, it checks voter records so eligible people can be included and inaccurate, duplicate, or ineligible entries can be addressed. The article does not provide a full procedural definition.

The article says the Election Commission issued orders scheduling SIR in states and Union Territories. These orders were covered by a joint affidavit filed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They told the Supreme Court that the orders were issued unanimously.

SIR matters because electoral rolls determine which names are available for election participation. A careful revision can improve the accuracy of those lists. An improperly handled revision could create disputes over entries. The Supreme Court was due to hear petitions about the Commission’s functioning after a September 23 Indian Express report.

The joint affidavit involved three Election Commission members. They were Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi. Together, they represented the Commission in its response to the Supreme Court.

Their roles were clearly identified in the filing. Gyanesh Kumar was the Chief Election Commissioner. Sandhu and Joshi were Election Commissioners. The affidavit said these three members had acted unanimously when issuing orders to schedule Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

This collective filing was important because the Supreme Court was examining the Commission’s functioning. The case followed a September 23 Indian Express report. The affidavit also explained internal work allocation and confirmed that the two Election Commissioners had separately written to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan about a July 28 order.

The internal work-allocation order was issued on July 28, 2026. It came from Maneesh Garg, a senior Deputy Election Commissioner described as an IAS officer of Additional Secretary rank posted on deputation to the Election Commission.

On July 29, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan. The affidavit said their letters concerned the order and the conduct of the officer who issued it. The order dealt with the Commission’s internal distribution of work.

The order never took effect. The two Election Commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30, 2026, preventing its implementation. The affidavit said work continued under the arrangement in an earlier Office Order dated September 23, 2025. This confirmed the reported dispute while describing its practical outcome.

If a revision wrongly removes or changes an eligible person’s name, that voter may be unable to find their correct record or participate as intended. If an incorrect name is added, the roll may contain an inaccurate entry. These consequences are general electoral principles, not specific cases described in the article.

The article places this risk in the context of SIR orders issued for states and Union Territories. The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners acted unanimously in scheduling those revisions. The Commission also addressed a dispute over internal work allocation.

Accurate revisions therefore matter for reliable electoral rolls. Errors can lead to complaints, challenges, or requests for correction. The article does not report a particular voter being affected. It does show why the Commission’s procedures and internal functioning were under judicial scrutiny after the September 23 report.

Form 6 is the prescribed application used by a person seeking inclusion of their name in an electoral roll. This explanation comes from established electoral practice; the article itself only identifies Form 6 as a form provided in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The form is generally submitted to request that an eligible applicant be added to the relevant electoral roll. The application process allows election authorities to examine the request under the applicable rules. The article does not list the form’s fields, supporting documents, or processing steps.

The Election Commission rejected what it called a misleading contention that Form 6 had been amended by SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. Thus, the Commission distinguished the prescribed form from the SIR orders discussed before the Supreme Court.

The Election Commission is responsible for maintaining electoral rolls as part of its constitutional and statutory election-administration role. This broader explanation is established public knowledge; the article focuses on the Commission’s orders and internal functioning rather than explaining that legal foundation.

Maintaining the rolls includes arranging revisions and addressing changes in voter records. In this case, the Commission scheduled Special Intensive Revision in states and Union Territories. Its joint affidavit told the Supreme Court that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi acted unanimously.

Accurate rolls support free and fair elections by giving authorities a dependable record for election administration. Poorly managed revisions can create disputes about inclusion or removal. The Supreme Court’s review of the Commission’s functioning therefore matters institutionally. The affidavit also clarified that a disputed July 28 internal work-allocation order was never implemented.