June 2025 decision to hold SIR taken unanimously, EC tells SC

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed review of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to examine voter records and address problems affecting registration. In this case, the Election Commission ordered a nationwide SIR, making the exercise important for people whose records may need verification or correction.

The article identifies unmapped records and logical discrepancies as examples of issues found during the process. When a person receives notice for either issue, a booth-level officer, or BLO, is to visit that person’s home. The BLO collects documents and uploads them, according to the commission’s stated procedure.

The commission says the nationwide SIR decision was unanimously taken on June 24, 2025. The dispute is therefore not only about voter-roll checks, but also about how the decision was made. The opposition says the process raises legal and political concerns, while the commission denies unilateral action.

On June 24, 2025, the chief election commissioner and the two election commissioners unanimously decided to conduct a nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The decision matters because opposition petitions alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had acted alone, possibly at the Modi government’s instance.

The commission’s affidavit directly rejects that allegation. Deputy EC Bhanu Prakash Yeturu stated that the affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by all three members. The commission also said that members may express different views during discussions, but the final decision follows consideration of those views.

The decision remains politically significant because it is central to the opposition’s “vote chori” campaign and its demand for action against Gyanesh Kumar. The commission says its June 24 decision complied with the law. It also says related communications to the cabinet secretary concerned administrative matters, not disagreement over the SIR decision.

The commission described in the affidavit has three members: the chief election commissioner and two election commissioners. This structure matters because decisions need a clear legal method when members express different opinions during deliberations.

The commission says the governing statute prefers decisions by unanimity. If unanimity is not possible, the three-member body can decide by majority. That means two members can determine the commission’s decision, even when the third member disagrees. The commission also stressed that suggestions, observations, or queries during discussions are not themselves formal decisions.

For the June 24 SIR decision, the EC says all three members agreed. It also says the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court was approved unanimously. This directly counters claims that the CEC bypassed the other commissioners. The broader issue is whether the commission followed its legally required decision-making process, a point now contested in the petitions.

Form 6 is the statutory form used for inclusion in electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It matters because people seeking registration as voters use this form to enter the rolls. Any lawful change could alter the information or documents applicants must provide.

The opposition alleged that SIR orders changed Form 6. The Election Commission rejected that claim. It said only the Centre could amend the form. According to the EC, the SIR orders introduced a separate declaration, allowing an applicant to avoid filing documents during the claims and objections period. The declaration was not part of Form 6.

The commission also said there was no significant change between the earlier and present declaration. Its position is that the statutory form remained unchanged, while a separate document supported the SIR process. This distinction is important because it separates a change to the legal application form from an additional procedural declaration.

During the ongoing SIR, a person may receive notice if the person is described as unmapped or has a logical discrepancy in the voter record. The article does not state that the person is immediately removed from the electoral roll. Instead, it describes a document-collection process.

The Election Commission says that, under a joint direction dated June 29, booth-level officers, or BLOs, will visit the homes of people who received such notices. The officers will collect documents from them and upload those documents. This creates a way for the records or explanations to be examined during the revision.

The process shows that a notice triggers verification rather than an automatic final outcome, based on the details provided. The excerpt does not explain what happens after documents are uploaded, or whether a person is ultimately included, excluded, or corrected. Those consequences are therefore not specified in the available text.

The opposition’s argument rests on the Election Commission’s legal decision-making rules. It alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar unilaterally ordered the SIR. If true, that could conflict with the requirement that the three-member commission decide collectively, through unanimity or a lawful majority.

The commission’s affidavit says the statute prefers unanimity but allows majority decisions when agreement cannot be reached. It also distinguishes discussion from decision. A suggestion, observation, or question by a commissioner, it says, is not itself a formal decision under Section 18 of the 2023 Act. The formal order must follow the commission’s process.

The EC now says the June 24 decision was unanimous, with no difference of opinion. It also says the affidavit was approved by the CEC and both election commissioners. This directly challenges the opposition’s demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s removal and prosecution over alleged unilateral action.

Electoral rolls are official lists of people registered to vote in particular constituencies. They connect voters to the places where they can participate in elections. A revision examines those records so that entries can be checked, corrected, or supported with documents when problems appear.

The article gives concrete examples: some records may be unmapped or contain logical discrepancies. During the SIR, affected people can receive notices. BLOs are then directed to visit their homes, collect documents, and upload them. This mechanism gives election officials information for reviewing disputed or incomplete records.

Accurate rolls matter in a representative democracy because registration is the gateway to participating in elections. Missing or incorrect entries can prevent eligible people from being represented, while unreliable records can reduce public trust. The commission’s dispute over the SIR therefore concerns both administration and confidence in the electoral process. The article does not provide the final results of the revision.