Supreme Court refrains from directing Election Commission to preserve files amid SIR row

The petitioners wanted the Election Commission of India to preserve documents connected with the special intensive revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. They were concerned that files, internal notings and communications could be important evidence in deciding whether the poll panel followed proper procedures. The Supreme Court did not grant that specific request.

During the hearing, the petitioners called the request “innocuous.” The Election Commission opposed it, saying the request was unfair because it concerned a constitutional body. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, responded that the court was aware of the issues and would examine them.

The court therefore refrained from expressly directing the ECI to preserve the records. It adjourned the case and gave petitioners time to answer the ECI’s counter-affidavit. The matter was tentatively listed for November 17, while the court’s assurance left open the possibility of examining original records later.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a focused review of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to check and update voter-list details through a process set by the Election Commission. The article discusses SIR because petitioners challenged how the process was ordered and implemented, including claims that the Chief Election Commissioner acted without agreement from the other commissioners.

The ECI said its SIR declaration was a separate document, not an amendment to statutory Form 6. It explained that the declaration helped link applicants or their relatives with earlier electoral rolls. This could allow applicants to avoid providing other supporting documents, making the declaration an important part of the enrolment process.

The commission said the orders governing SIR were issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. It maintained that all three orders were unanimous and complied with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 law. The Supreme Court will consider the competing claims.

Files, internal notings and communications can reveal how an official decision was reached. They may show who proposed an action, whether commissioners disagreed, and whether the final order reflected the required decision-making process. That matters here because petitioners allege that the Chief Election Commissioner made key SIR decisions without concurrence from the other two commissioners.

The dispute turns partly on what happened inside the commission. The article says allegations involved objections by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and claims that disagreements were not visible in the way decisions were implemented. Original records could therefore help compare the ECI’s written explanation with its internal process.

The Supreme Court did not order preservation, but said it would examine the records. The ECI’s counter-affidavit insists that the decisions were unanimous. Petitioners will first file rejoinders, and the court’s later examination may help determine whether the commission complied with Article 324 and Section 18.

The dispute involves a three-member Election Commission. Gyanesh Kumar is the Chief Election Commissioner, while Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the other two election commissioners named in the proceedings. The central question is whether decisions concerning SIR were taken collectively or without the other commissioners’ concurrence.

The petitioners allege that Kumar took key decisions unilaterally. They also rely on claims that Sandhu and Joshi objected to decisions involving SIR and other electoral-roll matters. The commission’s joint counter-affidavit, filed for all three members, gives the opposite account: it says the relevant decisions were unanimous.

The roles matter because the alleged problem is not simply what the ECI decided, but how it decided. The Supreme Court is examining the challenge to the poll panel’s functioning. It has allowed petitioners time to respond to the affidavit, with the matter tentatively listed for November 17.

The Election Commission’s counter-affidavit directly denies the petitioners’ main accusation. It says the Chief Election Commissioner did not take SIR decisions alone. Instead, the commission maintains that all decisions were approved unanimously by its three members.

The affidavit covers three orders governing SIR. They were issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. The ECI says these orders complied with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

This position conflicts with allegations that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to SIR-related decisions. The Supreme Court has not decided which account is correct. It gave the petitioners time to file rejoinders to the affidavit and will examine the dispute as the proceedings continue.

Form 6 is the online form used for voter enrolment. The dispute matters because petitioners allege that the Election Commission changed it while managing SIR. Any change could affect the information applicants provide and the documents they may need before being linked to an electoral roll.

The ECI denies amending the statutory Form 6. It says the declaration used during SIR was a separate document prescribed through commission orders, not part of the form established under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The commission says the declaration helped link applicants or relatives with earlier electoral rolls and could reduce the need for other supporting documents.

The Supreme Court previously clarified that it had neither approved nor disapproved the alleged modification. It wanted to inspect original records to determine what changes were made and by whom. Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen has filed a fresh petition, also challenging a press note claiming the court authorised the changes.

Article 324 is the constitutional provision governing the Election Commission’s authority over elections. In general terms, it gives the commission superintendence, direction and control of electoral processes. The ECI relies on Article 324 in defending the SIR orders and says they complied with that provision and Section 18 of the 2023 election commissioners law.

The existence of constitutional authority does not settle whether a particular decision was lawful. The court can examine whether the commission acted within its authority, followed the required decision-making process, and accurately represented what it did. That is why internal records, Form 6 materials and communications are relevant to the petitions.

Here, petitioners allege unilateral decisions and improper changes connected with voter enrolment. The ECI denies those claims and says the SIR decisions were unanimous. The Supreme Court has allowed rejoinders and said it will examine the records, so the legal question remains pending.