SIR row: ECI says Form 6 unchanged; rejects Opposition claims in 15-point SC counter-affidavit

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday rejected the Opposition's claims against it in a 15-point counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, pointing out that the basis of the allegations was a newspaper report, which is "not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates".

The SC plea had alleged that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had made a number of unilateral decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The allegations were also the basis of its ongoing protests demanding his resignation.

"The Commission has neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note/file to any news agency," the affidavit said, adding that the Opposition's SC plea against it was not maintanable, as CEC Gyanesh Kumar could be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, as per a Bar and Bench report.

Notably, the ECI has mentioned that the Monday affidavit was unanimously approved by all three of its Election Commissioners (ECs).

Apart from the ECI's reiteration that key SIR-related orders were unanimously approved, the counter-affidavit also stated that Form 6 was not amended—as only the Centre had the power to do so—while the SIR-linked additional declaration was a separate document. Form 6 is the online application form for first-time voters to register themselves.

Among the 15 points was also a crucial admission: that the additional declaration had been displayed online in a way that made it seem like an amendment. Due to this, the ECI said that from October 21 onwards, the online application will be split into Form 6 and the additional declaration, as with the physical form.

The poll body also made a comment on its functioning. It said that ECI files go to the two Election Commissioners before making their way to the CEC, and in urgent cases, ECs approve things electronically, after which these are recorded on file.

It clarified that any suggestion, observation or query by any Election Commissioner during this process does not constitute a decision of the ECI under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

In that regard, the counter-affidavit said that action is taken against officials who issue orders without approval of the competent authority.

The ECI had been responding to a quo warranto (a special legal action questioning an official's authority) SC plea filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh asking CEC Kumar to explain the unilateral SIR-linked decisions he allegedly took, which contravened Article 324 of the Constitution that safeguards the collective decision-making power of the poll body.

Alleging a “progressive centralisation” of power, absence/delay of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and filing of appeals without the two ECs' knowledge or approval, the plea had alleged that there were 14 objections recorded by them between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 against the steps taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

It is yet to be seen how this affects the Opposition's planned November 1 rally demanding CEC Kumar's resignation, a halt on the SIR and the restoration of electoral rolls, and that elections be conducted through paper ballots.