Supreme Court Scrutinises ECI Affidavit, Voter Forms and SIR Records

The dispute concerns how the Election Commission of India made and implemented decisions during the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. Pleas before the Supreme Court allege that decisions, including changes to Form 6 for voter enrolment, were taken without the approval of the two Election Commissioners, according to India News.

The commission rejects that account. Its counter-affidavit says orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimously approved by all three members, Mint reported. The distinction matters because the petitions challenge not only the revision process but also decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

On October 26, the commission's affidavit set out its defence: Form 6 had not been amended, and members' approval could be obtained electronically in urgent matters, according to Legal News India. The commission also said only the central government could change the form's format, NDTV Top Stories reported.

The commission said the online SIR form and declaration had been separated from October 21, according to India Today. That did not settle the dispute. On October 27, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for TMC MP Dola Sen, challenged the commission's account and said it had wrongly claimed the court authorised an amended Form 6, Legal News India reported. This was the petitioner's allegation, not a finding by the court.

Also on October 27, the Supreme Court gave petitioners ten days to respond to the affidavit, with the next hearing set for November 17, according to Times now. The court said it would examine a request to preserve or file complete SIR records, The Hindu reported. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi is among the petitioners seeking preservation of those records.

On October 28, the focus turned to Delhi voters who had previously been enrolled but were missing from revised draft rolls. The court verbally questioned why they were being told to submit Form 6, according to Scroll.in. Separately, the court said the legality of the commission's checks for "logical discrepancy" remained undecided: its earlier permission to use that category in West Bengal was only interim, Times of India India reported.

On October 30, the court asked the commission to take corrective steps against bulk Form 7 applications seeking voter deletions in Uttar Pradesh, Scroll.in reported. The commission acknowledged false applications, including forged signatures and disputed submissions, but said none had been acted upon, according to Business Line - Home.

The commission's affidavit remains a defence under scrutiny, rather than a judicial resolution of the allegations. It also argues that the CEC can be removed only through the process applicable to a Supreme Court judge and that restraining his functioning would run contrary to the 2023 Act, according to The Hindu.

The latest Uttar Pradesh proceedings have added a separate accountability question: how deletion applications were checked and handled. The Supreme Court has sought a report on the misuse allegations, while the commission says it accepted no Form 7 applications filed in violation of the rules and that officials took prompt corrective steps, The Hindu reported.

The petitioners' response to the affidavit and the November 17 hearing are the next scheduled steps reported by Times now. The court has yet to resolve the request for complete SIR records, which could help establish how the disputed decisions were made, according to The Hindu.

Also pending are the commission's report on Form 7 misuse allegations in Uttar Pradesh, reported by The Hindu, and the unresolved legality of the "logical discrepancy" checks described by Times of India India. The Delhi hearings leave a further question open: why previously enrolled voters excluded from draft rolls should use Form 6 to return to the list.