Election Commission says SIR Form 6 is unchanged:Tells SC decisions were taken by consensus; hearing tomorrow

Amid a month-long controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Election Commission said it had made no changes to Form 6 used in the process. It said the rules give the Centre the authority to make changes to the form. The Commission filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court on Monday, stating that all decisions related to the SIR were taken unanimously. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had all agreed on the decisions. The affidavit filed in court also bears the signatures of all three. The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition in which the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the CEC and other officials. The controversy began last month after The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes in Form 6 used in the SIR process. A petition was subsequently filed in the Supreme Court based on the report. The Supreme Court will hear a petition related to the SIR filed by 13 Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, on 27 October. Government has the authority to amend Form 6 The Election Commission said that under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, only the government can amend the prescribed form. It clarified that the declaration sought during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a separate document and cannot be considered an amendment to Form 6. The controversy began after The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had objected to changes requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves, their parents or their grandparents to the previous SIR. The ECI acknowledged that the way the requirement was displayed on its online application platform could have given the impression that Form 6 had been amended. The Commission argued that the petition was based on a newspaper report, which cannot be treated as evidence in the eyes of the law. It said the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) could not be restrained from performing his duties on that basis. The Commission also said the petitioner had not independently verified the claims with the officials concerned, making the petition unsuitable for consideration. Election Commission’s response in the Supreme Court: 8 key points Objections on a file do not mean opposition to a decision: The Commission said questions, suggestions or objections recorded on a file do not, by themselves, represent its final decision. A three-tier decision-making process: The Commission said files generally go first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC. BLOs will visit homes if names cannot be matched with old voter lists: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will collect the necessary documents from the homes of people whose names could not be linked to previous voter lists and upload them online. Not every voter will be called to an office for a hearing: The Commission said such voters would generally not need to appear in person. Hearings would be held if necessary and conducted online wherever possible. Only authorised officials can add or remove names from voter lists: The Commission clarified that no name can be added to or deleted from a voter list without an order from the competent Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). Expert committee to examine ECINet: A committee of experts from IIT Madras and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, has been formed to examine whether the ECINet platform is functioning properly and complying with the rules. Removing the CEC is not easy: The Commission said the Constitution allows the CEC to be removed only through the same process and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Brief response filed for now, detailed reply may follow: The Commission said it had filed a brief response because of the Dussehra holidays. It added that it would provide a detailed response to each allegation if required. What the ECI said in its affidavit Affidavit approved unanimously: The affidavit was approved unanimously by all three members of the Election Commission — the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and both Election Commissioners (ECs). All three SIR orders were unanimous: The commission said its three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous decisions. Notes on files are not commission decisions: Notes, queries or suggestions made by the CEC or Election Commissioners while processing a file do not constitute decisions of the commission. File approval procedure: Files are sent first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC. In urgent cases, approval is obtained electronically and recorded on the file later. Action against officers exceeding their powers: Any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers will face action. July 28 work allocation order: The order was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day. The order was never implemented after the commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30. Form 6 has not been amended: The commission said Form 6 had not been amended and that only the Centre could amend it. The SIR declaration is a separate document. Online application format to be changed: The ECI acknowledged that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment to Form 6. From October 21, the online application will be divided into Form 6 and the declaration, in line with the physical form. Unmapped voters need not attend hearings: Booth-level officers (BLOs) will collect documents from the homes of unmapped voters. Hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online. ECINet and voter records: No name can be added to or deleted from the electoral roll through ECINet except by an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). A committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has been set up to check compliance. Goa’s 97 ‘left out’ voters: Of the 97 voters reported to have been left out, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports. West Bengal voter inclusion appeals: Appeals against the inclusion of voters were filed by officers from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, under Supreme Court orders. The commission said these matters were not brought before it. Plea against the CEC: The ECI said the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable. It added that the CEC could be removed only through the procedure applicable to the removal of a Supreme Court judge. No internal files released to the media: The commission said it had never released or authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media. EVM challenges: The ECI said repeated challenges to electronic voting machines (EVMs) had already been rejected by the Supreme Court. Detailed response sought: The commission said it had filed a brief reply because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph response. ​