SC refrains from directing ECI to preserve files amid row over SIR decisions

The petitioners wanted the Election Commission of India to preserve documents linked to alleged unilateral decisions on the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Such records could help the court assess what decisions were taken, by whom, and whether all three commissioners agreed. The request concerned files, internal notings, and communications.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Menaka Guruswamy called the request innocuous. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Maninder Singh opposed it, saying it was unfair to a constitutional body. The bench said it was aware of the issues and would examine them.

The court did not issue the requested preservation direction. It tentatively listed the matter for November 17 and allowed the petitioners to file rejoinders to the ECI’s counter-affidavit. The court’s assurance means the records remain important, especially in the separate dispute over online Form 6 and the alleged changes to it.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused exercise to review electoral rolls and verify information used for voter enrolment. Its purpose is to improve the accuracy of the rolls by checking applications and connecting applicants or relatives with earlier electoral records. The article describes the exercise through the documents and orders governing it, rather than giving a complete general definition.

The Election Commission said its SIR declaration was separate from statutory Form 6. It said the declaration helped link applicants or their relatives to earlier electoral rolls and could allow applicants to avoid providing other supporting documents. The petitioners dispute aspects of this process and the way decisions were made.

The controversy is therefore about both the revision itself and its safeguards. The Supreme Court is examining whether the ECI’s orders were properly made and what changes were made to Form 6. It has not yet ruled on the petitioners’ allegations or approved the disputed changes.

The Election Commission involved in the case is a three-member body. It includes Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The key issue is whether decisions concerning electoral-roll management and the SIR could be taken in the CEC’s name without agreement from the other two members.

The ECI’s joint counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of all three officials. It said the three orders governing the SIR were based on unanimous decisions. Those orders were issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, and were said to comply with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 law.

The petitioners allege that Sandhu and Joshi objected to some decisions and that internal disagreements were not reflected in implementation. The ECI denies unilateral action. The Supreme Court will examine the records and the parties’ filings before deciding the challenge.

If a voter-roll revision is carried out without adequate safeguards, eligible voters could face problems during enrolment or verification. Their applications might be delayed, questioned, or left out if records are not checked fairly. Changes to an online form could also make it harder for applicants to understand what information or documents they must provide.

The article highlights the disputed SIR declaration and online Form 6. The ECI said the declaration helped link applicants or relatives to earlier electoral rolls and could let applicants avoid other supporting documents. Petitioners, however, challenge the functioning of the poll panel and allege that Form 6 was changed without proper authority.

The Supreme Court has not concluded that eligible voters were excluded. It earlier said it had neither approved nor disapproved the alleged Form 6 modification and wanted original records. The court’s examination could clarify what changed, who made the change, and whether the process followed legal safeguards.

The petitioners are seeking the ECI’s original files, internal notings, and communications because the central dispute concerns how decisions were made. They allege that the Chief Election Commissioner took important decisions without concurrence from the other two election commissioners. Original records could reveal the actual sequence of events.

The documents may show whether commissioners raised objections, how those objections were handled, and whether the final orders reflected a collective decision. They are also relevant to the online Form 6 dispute. The Supreme Court previously said it wanted to examine original records to establish what changes were made and by whom.

The ECI denies unilateral action and says all SIR decisions were unanimous. The court did not order preservation at this hearing, but it assured petitioners that it would examine the records. Rejoinders to the ECI’s affidavit will come before the matter is considered further, tentatively on November 17.

In a multi-member Election Commission, decisions are supposed to belong to the commission collectively, not to one member acting alone. That principle matters because the petitions question whether the CEC could issue or implement decisions without the other commissioners’ concurrence. The case therefore examines both formal orders and the internal process behind them.

The ECI’s affidavit says suggestions, queries, or objections raised by an individual commissioner do not themselves amount to decisions under Section 18. It maintains that the commission decides matters collectively. It also says the three orders governing the SIR were based on unanimous decisions by Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Vivek Joshi.

The petitioners allege that Sandhu and Joshi objected to SIR-related decisions and that those disagreements were not reflected in implementation. The article does not state a detailed voting or tie-breaking procedure. The Supreme Court will examine the records and submissions before determining whether the collective-decision requirement was followed.

Article 324 is the constitutional provision that establishes the Election Commission’s authority over elections. In this dispute, the ECI relies on it to defend its power to issue orders concerning electoral-roll management, including the special intensive revision. The article identifies Article 324 as a legal basis but does not provide its complete text.

The ECI’s joint affidavit says the three SIR orders complied with Article 324 and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. It also says those orders were unanimously decided by the Chief Election Commissioner and the two election commissioners. The petitioners challenge whether the decisions were actually collective.

The constitutional reference does not settle the case by itself. The Supreme Court is examining the commission’s functioning, the alleged changes to online Form 6, and the original records behind the decisions. The court will have to assess whether the ECI acted within its authority and followed the required decision-making process.