Supreme Court gives petitioners time to answer Election Commission's SIR defence

The dispute concerns how the Election Commission approved decisions on the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls, and whether it changed Form 6, used to enrol voters.

The pleas allege that several decisions were taken without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, according to India News. The commission rejects that account, saying Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and both other commissioners approved all three SIR orders.

The three orders were issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. In its counter-affidavit, the commission said each was approved unanimously, Mint reported.

On October 26, coverage of the affidavit set out the commission's defence of its approval process. Members' approval is obtained electronically in urgent matters, according to Legal News India.

The commission also maintained that Form 6 had not changed. India Today reported that the online SIR form and declaration were separated from October 21. According to NDTV Top Stories, the commission said only the central government can change the format of Form 6.

The affidavit also opposed attempts to restrain Kumar's functioning. The Hindu reported that the common affidavit, filed for the commission, CEC Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, argued that such a restraint would be contrary to the 2023 Act.

On October 27, TMC MP Dola Sen challenged the commission's explanation. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, alleged that the commission had issued a press release claiming the Supreme Court authorised an amended Form 6, although the court had not done so, Legal News India reported.

The Supreme Court deferred the hearing on October 27 and gave petitioners ten days to reply to the counter-affidavit, according to Times of India India. Times now reported that the next hearing is scheduled for November 17.

The commission has sought summary dismissal of the petitions, calling the allegations misconceived and based on a single newspaper report, according to Business Line - Home. That remains its position in the litigation, not a court finding.

A separate request concerns the underlying records. The Hindu reported that the court said it would examine the petitioners' plea to direct the commission to preserve or file complete SIR records. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi is among those petitioners.

The petitioners' response will set out their answer to the commission's claims about unanimous approval and an unchanged Form 6. Those competing accounts remain unresolved ahead of the November 17 hearing reported by Times now.

The court's handling of the records request is another pending step. Its statement that it would examine the plea, reported by The Hindu, does not itself amount to an order requiring preservation or filing.