Three SIR orders, all unanimous, and no change to Form 6: that is the Election Commission of India’s reply in the Supreme Court. It adds that in urgent matters the Election Commissioners give their approval electronically, with the approval recorded on file later. The affidavit answers a plea alleging that CEC Gyanesh Kumar took decisions over the written objections of the other two Commissioners.
New Delhi: Responding to petitions that seek a writ of quo warranto against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegedly unilateral decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has made no change to Form 6, the application for inclusion in the electoral roll. In urgent matters, it says, the approval of the Election Commissioners is obtained electronically and recorded on file later. [Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India]
The petitions are before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, which issued notice on October 5. The matter is expected to be taken up on Tuesday, October 27.
The Commission’s short affidavit was filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu and, the ECI says, was approved unanimously by the CEC and both Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Citing the Dussehra vacation, it has sought liberty to file a detailed para-wise reply.
Unanimous orders, and what a note on file means
The ECI says that the three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026, were all issued on unanimous decisions.
On how files move, the Commission says a file passes from one Election Commissioner to the other and then to the CEC. A suggestion, observation or query recorded by a Commissioner along the way is not, by itself, a decision of the Commission under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (the 2023 Act), it says.
Where a matter is urgent, the Commissioners give their approval electronically, and the approval is recorded on the file later. The ECI adds that officials who issue orders without the approval of the competent authority will face action.
Referring to an office order issued on July 28, 2026 by an Additional Secretary on deputation, the ECI says the order was never implemented after the two Commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30. It calls the allegations based on the related letters “misconceived.”
Form 6: “not amended”, but online process to be split
The ECI says it could not have amended Form 6, because only the Central Government can amend forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The SIR declaration, it says, is a separate document.
It accepts, though, that the way the declaration appeared online alongside Form 6 could be read as an amendment. The two were combined so that an applicant would need only one OTP and one e-sign, the Commission says. Under a decision of its Electoral Roll Division dated October 21, 2026, the online application will now be split into two parts, matching the physical forms.
The declaration asks applicants whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier SIR-era roll. Critics say this could hinder first-time voters. At the October 5 hearing, the CJI had remarked, “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us,” and said the Court would examine records to find out who made the changes.
“A newspaper report is not evidence”
On maintainability, the ECI argues that the petition rests entirely on a single newspaper report, which the petitioners did not independently verify:
“In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates.”
The Commission says it never released, or authorised the release of, any internal note or file to the media, and it calls the attempt to cast aspersions on it “unfortunate.”
ECINet, home verification and other points
On its ECINet platform, the ECI says:
“No entry is added or deleted or modified except by order of the Electoral Registration Officer.”
A committee that includes experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru was set up on October 14, 2026 to check ECINet’s legal compliance. Under a decision of September 26, 2026, Booth Level Officers will collect documents from unmapped voters at their homes. “Such persons need not be called for hearing to the ERO / AERO office,” the affidavit says.
The ECI also says that of 97 voters in Goa whose cases were flagged, 88 had filed Form 6 and been accepted, six were abroad, and three were Portuguese passport holders or foreigners. Appeals against inclusion of voters in West Bengal, it says, were filed by staff of the Chief Electoral Officer under Supreme Court orders, not by the Commission.
The allegations the affidavit answers
The petitions, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi, rely on an Indian Express report that 14 SIR-related decisions were taken in the ECI’s name despite written objections recorded by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026. The petitioners allege a “progressive centralisation” of power in the CEC, delayed or missing agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes, and appeals filed without the two Commissioners’ knowledge.
They seek a declaration that actions taken by the CEC without a decision of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2023 Act are invalid. They also ask that the SIR and related actions be declared void. These are allegations, and the Court is yet to examine them.
CEC can be removed only like an SC judge
The ECI opposes the prayer to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar by relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, under which the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Such a prayer is therefore not maintainable, it says.
Background
On October 5, the Bench issued notice to the Centre, the ECI, the CEC, both Election Commissioners, ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. It declined to pass any interim order suspending the CEC, saying it first needed “authentic information.” The CJI said the report “might be wholly or partly correct or incorrect,” and that if a decision was found to have been taken neither by majority nor unanimously, the ECI would have to explain it. “If there is anything wrong with the decisions, we can always annul them,” he said.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh told the Court that it was “dealing with a very grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy,” and said the ECI had responded to the report only with a vague press release. Other petitions on the same issue, including one by Rahul Gandhi, are pending. The Court has expressed no view on the merits.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.; Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Stage: Short affidavit of the Election Commission of India; hearing listed on October 27, 2026
Appearances (October 5 hearing): Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh; Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy in the connected plea