The poll panel in its response to pleas alleging unilateral decisions said law and prescribed Form 6 for voter registration were not amended

The Election Commission of India on Monday defend ed its decision in the Supreme Court to conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying that the exercise was undertaken in accordance with the law and the three orders on its rollout were approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members.

The law and prescribed Form 6 for voter registration were not amended, the poll panel said in its response to pleas alleging that the EC took several decisions without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, including changes in Form 6.

The EC said that its counter-affidavit filed in the apex court was unanimously approved by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners.

The poll panel said that the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025; October 27, 2025; and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members, the CEC and two ECs.

The poll panel said that the CEC cannot be restrained from functioning as newspaper reports are not considered as evidence in the eyes of law. Earlier, on October 5, the top court had said that it will examine all decisions of the EC and annul those found not to be in accordance with law, as it issued notices to the Centre and the poll body.

The pleas were filed after Indian Express reported on September 25 that EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The claim has sparked pro tests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding removal of CEC Kumar. In its counter-affidavit, the EC said the SIR exercise was undertaken in the discharge of its constitutional mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules.

Rejecting the contention that Form 6 had been amended through the SIR orders, the EC said the declaration prescribed for the exercise was a separate document and not part of the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll.

It said the declaration was intended to facilitate the verification of applicants’ eligibility and the linking of their details with electoral rolls prepared during previous intensive revisions.

According to the affidavit, applicants whose details could be linked with earlier electoral rolls could submit the declaration along with Form 6 without additional documents.

Those unable to provide such details or whose records could not be linked would be required to submit supporting documents as prescribed. The EC also relied on the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026, judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus ECI case, which, it said, recognised the Commission’s authority to prescribe a documentation framework for the revision of electoral rolls.

The affidavit further stated that the Commission had decided to facilitate the process for electors who could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls or whose records contained discrepancies. Booth-level officers would visit their homes to collect documents, which would be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.

The Commission said the exercise did not prevent eligible persons from applying for enrolment after the completion of SIR, adding that the regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules. The EC urged the court to reject the petitioner’s contentions, describing them as misconceived.