NEW DELHI, October 27, 2026: The Election Commission of India has defended its decision-making process concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, telling the Supreme Court that the three orders under challenge were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.
The submission comes in response to a petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and aspects of the electoral-roll revision process.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
Issue/Event: The Election Commission defended its Special Intensive Revision orders and denied amending Form 6.
Location: New Delhi, India; proceedings before the Supreme Court of India.
Authority/Organisation: Election Commission of India and Supreme Court of India.
Action Taken: The ECI filed a counter-affidavit stating that the three SIR orders were unanimous decisions and that Form 6 remained unchanged.
Impact: The proceedings could clarify aspects of electoral-roll revision, the Commission's decision-making procedures and the process available to eligible voters seeking enrolment.
In its counter-affidavit, the Commission stated that the SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions. The response was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu and, according to the Commission's submission, was approved by the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The ECI rejected allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner had acted unilaterally despite objections from the other two commissioners. It argued that individual observations, questions or suggestions recorded while files are being processed do not, by themselves, constitute formal decisions of the Commission.
The affidavit also addressed concerns about Form 6, which is used by eligible applicants seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. The Commission maintained that the prescribed form had not been amended through the three SIR orders and that the declaration required for the revision exercise was a separate document.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
Electoral rolls determine who is registered to vote, making the procedures used to revise them important for electoral participation and public confidence. The dispute raises questions about how a multi-member constitutional body records and approves decisions, how statutory voter-registration forms are used, and how citizens can seek inclusion if their names are missing or their records cannot be matched. The Supreme Court's consideration may help clarify the legal issues raised by the petition. Until the Court rules, the Commission's statements should be treated as submissions made in its defence rather than judicial findings.
The Commission further stated that only the Central Government could amend the statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It said the separate declaration was intended to facilitate the mapping of applicants against earlier electoral rolls.
The dispute follows allegations concerning internal decision-making and changes associated with the voter-roll revision process. The Commission argued that the petition relied on a media report and that the allegations were misconceived.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the matter on October 27. The ECI's affidavit represents its position in the proceedings; it does not establish that the Court has accepted the Commission's arguments.
The case is significant because it concerns the administration of electoral rolls, the responsibilities of the Election Commission's members and the safeguards available to eligible voters seeking registration.
