Supreme Court Questions SIR Procedures, Seeks Action on Bulk Voter Deletions

The dispute concerns the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. Petitioners alleged that decisions, including changes to Form 6 used to enrol voters, were taken without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, according to India News.

The commission disputes that account. Its affidavit says the SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by all three members, Mint reported.

The challenge also concerns Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's functioning. A common affidavit for the commission, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi argues that restraining the CEC's functioning would be contrary to the 2023 Act, according to The Hindu. That is the commission's legal position, not a ruling by the court.

On October 26, the commission defended its decision-making and denied amending Form 6. It said members' approval was obtained electronically in urgent matters, Legal News India reported. The commission also said only the central government could change the form's format, according to NDTV Top Stories.

The commission said the online SIR form and declaration had been separated from October 21, India Today reported. That did not settle the disagreement: on October 27, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for TMC MP Dola Sen, argued that the commission was now justifying tampering with Form 6, according to Legal News India.

Also on October 27, the Supreme Court gave petitioners ten days to respond to the affidavit and scheduled the next hearing for November 17, Times now reported. The court said it would examine their request to preserve or file complete SIR records, according to The Hindu.

On October 28, the focus turned to Delhi voters who had been enrolled before the revision but were missing from the draft rolls. The court verbally questioned why they were being told to fill Form 6, Scroll.in reported.

That day, the court also clarified that the legality of the commission's "logical discrepancy" checks remained undecided. Its earlier permission to use the category in West Bengal had been an interim measure, according to Times of India India.

On October 30, the court asked the commission to take corrective steps against bulk Form 7 applications seeking to delete voters' names during the Uttar Pradesh revision, Scroll.in reported.

The commission's claim of unanimous approval remains contested, and the court has not resolved the wider legal challenge. The request to preserve complete SIR records is also still under examination, according to The Hindu.

The latest intervention concerns applications to remove voters in Uttar Pradesh. It follows the court's questions about how previously enrolled Delhi voters should seek inclusion after being left out of draft rolls. These are distinct procedural issues, involving Form 7 deletion applications and Form 6 enrolment applications, as reported by Scroll.in and Scroll.in.

The next scheduled hearing in the challenge to the commission's affidavit is November 17, according to Times now. Petitioners' replies and the court's handling of the records-preservation request will determine how the competing accounts of the SIR decisions are examined.

The immediate practical question is what corrective steps the commission takes over bulk deletion applications in Uttar Pradesh, following the court's October 30 intervention reported by Scroll.in. The legality of the "logical discrepancy" checks also remains open, according to Times of India India.