SIR orders were unanimous, Form 6 unchanged: EC defends CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Supreme Court

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, telling the Supreme Court that all three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimously approved by the Commission.

In its affidavit responding to petitions questioning the CEC's functioning, the ECI said the allegations were based entirely on a single news report. The affidavit itself was unanimously approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

The Commission said notes, queries and suggestions made by individual members during file processing did not constitute decisions of the ECI. It also described allegations based on internal communications between Election Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary as "misconceived".

Addressing a July 28 work allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation, the ECI said both Election Commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary the following day. The order was never implemented after their joint direction on July 30.

Don't Miss: Electoral roll revision: Surjit Bhalla weighs in on deletions, missing voters, disenfranchisement

Form 6 unchanged, SIR declaration separate

The ECI clarified that Form 6, used for voter enrolment, had not been amended through the SIR orders. It said only the central government could amend the form and that the additional SIR declaration was a separate document.

The Commission acknowledged that the online presentation could be interpreted as an amendment. It said the online application would be separated into Form 6 and the declaration from October 21, matching the physical process.

The affidavit explained that changes to the declaration under the October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, SIR orders allowed voters to be mapped to existing electoral records, reducing the need for additional documents. This mapping facility had not been available during the Bihar SIR.

Must Watch: SIR Explained: Forms 6, 7 And 8—What Voters Must Know | Akshita Nandagopal Explains

Hearings only in exceptional cases

The ECI also clarified that voters who could not be mapped to existing records would not ordinarily need to attend hearings. Booth Level Officers would collect documents from their homes, while hearings would be conducted only in exceptional cases, preferably online.

On concerns over ECINet, the Commission maintained that no voter could be added to or deleted from electoral rolls without an Electoral Registration Officer's order. It said a committee involving experts from IIT and IISc had been constituted to examine compliance.

The affidavit also addressed allegations concerning voter enrolment in Goa and appeals filed in West Bengal. Of 97 voters described as left out in Goa, the ECI said 88 were already enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.

Regarding West Bengal, the Commission said appeals against voter inclusion had been filed by officers of the state's Chief Electoral Officer under Supreme Court orders. "These matters were not brought to the Commission," it stated.

The ECI argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable, noting that the Constitution provides for the CEC's removal through a process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge.