Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The Election Commission has defended its decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, telling the Supreme Court that the exercise was carried out in accordance with the law, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
The poll panel said its three members unanimously approved the orders to roll out the exercise. It also rejected allegations that the law or Form 6, used for voter registration, had been amended.
advertisement
In its counter-affidavit, the Election Commission said the response filed in the Supreme Court was unanimously approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to PTI, the Commission said the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimously approved by the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners.
The poll panel also said the Chief Election Commissioner could not be restrained from functioning on the basis of newspaper reports, which are not treated as evidence in law.
On October 5, the Supreme Court said it would examine all decisions of the Election Commission and annul those found to be inconsistent with the law. It also issued notices to the Centre and the poll panel.
The petitions were filed after The Indian Express reported on September 25 that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR. According to the report, they said the orders were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The claim prompted protests by opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party, which demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Kumar.
In its affidavit, the Commission said the SIR was undertaken as part of its constitutional responsibilities under Article 324 of the Constitution, along with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the applicable rules.
Rejecting the argument that Form 6 had been amended through the SIR orders, the Election Commission said the declaration required for the exercise was a separate document and not part of the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll.
It said the declaration was meant to help verify the eligibility of applicants and link their details with electoral rolls prepared during previous intensive revisions.
The Commission said the declaration introduced for the later phases of the SIR was a modified version of the earlier format. The change was intended to make the process easier by allowing applicants to provide their own details or those of relatives listed in previous electoral rolls.
According to the affidavit, applicants whose details could be linked with earlier electoral rolls could submit the declaration with Form 6 without providing additional documents. Applicants who could not provide such details, or whose records could not be linked, would have to submit the prescribed supporting documents.
The Election Commission also cited the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026, judgment in the Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India case. It said the judgment recognised the Commission’s authority to set documentation requirements for the revision of electoral rolls.
The affidavit said the Commission had decided to assist voters who could not be matched with previous electoral rolls or whose records contained discrepancies. Booth-level officers would visit their homes to collect documents, which would then be uploaded for consideration by electoral registration officers.
The Commission said eligible people could still apply for enrolment after the SIR was completed. The regular process of updating electoral rolls would continue under the applicable rules.
In summary, the Election Commission maintained that the SIR and its related orders were legally valid and unanimously approved, denied making changes to Form 6, and urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitioners’ arguments as misconceived.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
