The Election Commission of India (ECI) has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, asserting that decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimously passed and legally compliant. The affidavit refutes allegations of unilateral decision-making by the Chief Election Commissioner and defends the SIR process as transparent and in line with statutory procedures.
THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (ECI) on Monday, October 26, 2026, submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court (SC) of India, stressing strongly that the three orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimously passed and in accordance with the legal framework of the country. The orders regarding the SIR process were issued between June 2025 and May 2026, and became the centre of a major tension in the country following the Indian Express report published on September 22, 2026.
ECI submitted its stance in an affidavit filed before the SC on Monday night, as the apex court is set to hear the petitions filed against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar for taking unilateral decisions of SIR. A Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant is scheduled to hear the petitions and PILs on Tuesday, October 27, 2026.
As of now, the SIR process has witnessed the deletion of 13.36 crore names from voter rolls in the draft stage.
The ECIs Affidavit is jointly filed on behalf of the CEC and two Election Commissioners (ECs), and signed by the Deputy Election Commissioner.
The affidavit comes as a response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) following The Indian Express investigation claiming unilateral decision-making by the CEC with respect to the changes in Form 6, even when the other two ECs opposed them.
In its affidavit, the ECI has outrightly described the petition as "misconceived." It has denied any amendments to Form 6 — the form used to include one’s name in the voter list. However, it maintained that the ECI had “rationalized” the format of the Form 6 — the one used in the BIhar SIR. Their argument rests on the ground that such a transformation was done to enhance the speed and efficiency of the mapping process.
Responding to the allegations of “unilateral decision-making,” the affidavit firmly defended the ongoing SIR process, and sought to explain the decision-making process of the EC. The affidavit stated that the decisions by the body are either taken unanimously or by majority, and any observation or query of the ECs does not constitute “a decision of the EC” as per Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioner (Appointment, Conditions of service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Maintaining this rationale throughout, the affidavit defended the SIR orders were issued with proper authorization and in coherence with the statutory processes on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 respectively.
Another Indian Express report on the ECIs functioning made headlines last week regarding the issues flagged by the two ECs on the conduct of an IAS officer, Maneesh Garg —- senior Deputy Election Commissioner — regarding a work allocation order issued by him. Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, T V Somanathan, alleging that a work order has been issued by Garg, without “discussion, or informing about the revised allocation of work.” T V Somanathan, acknowledged the concerns raised, but did not take any action. The affidavit accepted this incident, and maintained that the order was not implemented.
The affidavit maintained that there was no modification to the Form 6. The earlier Form used in the Bihar SIR was rationalized, and a section on “declaration” was introduced. The declaration was introduced as a separate document, which was to be used to verify an applicant’s database, and establish links with the earlier electoral rolls.
As per the rules, any applicant could provide their own details, or their parents’ or grandparents’ to establish the relevant link to the previous electoral rolls. In case there is no link, one would need to submit a list of documents prescribed by the ECI.
Stating this, the affidavit said that the format of the declaration form was changed based on its experiences in Bihar 2025, and that this did not fall under alteration of Form 6.
It further stated that the ECI had taken its decisions based on the Supreme Court ruling in May 2026, which upheld the SIR’s validity and necessity.
Responding to the fears and allegations over voter exclusions, the affidavit mentioned that it had built certain safety valves into the SIR process in order to tackle this.
The Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were entrusted with the responsibility to issue notices to Individuals whose names are missing in the draft rolls. Furthermore, the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would visit these individuals, collect their documents and upload them for re-consideration.
The affidavit also formally stated that, “Aadhaar card” is only a proof of identity, and not a proof of citizenship.
Amidst these developments, the Supreme Court is set to hear the petitions filed against the CEC and the functioning of the Election Commission today, October 27, 2026. A three-judge bench constituted by Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana, and headed by CJI Surya Kant will hear the petitions. The bench will also hear the petitions filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, and other petitions filed by opposition leaders and parties.
[OG/AR]
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store