Election Commission SIR Case 2026: SC Hearing and ECI Affidavit

Election Commission Defends SIR Decisions Before Supreme Court as Opposition Seeks Independent Audit

New Delhi | 27 October 2026

The Election Commission of India has defended its decision-making process during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, telling the Supreme Court that key decisions were taken unanimously by its three members.

The Commission's affidavit, reported on October 26, comes ahead of a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, involving petitions questioning aspects of the poll body's functioning.

The proceedings have attracted national attention because they concern how electoral rolls are revised, how the Election Commission reaches institutional decisions and what safeguards exist for eligible voters whose names are removed from electoral lists.

Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, have sought judicial scrutiny of the Commission's procedures and an independent examination of voter-list deletions.

The Election Commission rejects allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally while exercising the Commission's powers.

What Did the Election Commission Tell the Supreme Court?

In an affidavit filed in response to litigation concerning the SIR process, the Election Commission said its decisions were taken collectively.

The Commission specifically referred to three SIR-related orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026.

According to the affidavit, these orders received unanimous approval.

The Commission also argued that observations, questions and suggestions recorded by individual Election Commissioners during internal file processing should not automatically be interpreted as formal institutional decisions.

This distinction is central to the dispute.

An internal disagreement may form part of a deliberative process, whereas an official Commission decision is expected to reflect the institution's legally prescribed decision-making procedure.

The Commission further stated that urgent matters can receive electronic approval from members, with the approval subsequently recorded in official files.

Its affidavit also rejected allegations that the Commission had independently amended statutory Form 6, which is used in voter registration.

The Commission maintains that it did not make such an amendment.

Why Has the Opposition Approached the Supreme Court?

The controversy intensified after an investigation published by The Indian Express on September 23 reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections concerning several SIR-related decisions.

The report raised questions about whether some decisions had been taken without the knowledge or concurrence of both commissioners.

Following the investigation, Opposition parties increased their criticism of the Election Commission's functioning.

A joint petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders asks the Supreme Court to examine the records underlying disputed decisions.

The petitioners have requested access to relevant files, meeting records, internal observations and institutional approvals.

They have also sought an independent audit of electoral-roll deletions and modifications.

Their central argument is that electoral-roll revision must be conducted transparently and in accordance with the law.

These remain allegations and legal arguments, not judicial findings of wrongdoing.

What Is the Special Intensive Revision?

The Special Intensive Revision is an electoral-roll verification exercise conducted by the Election Commission.

Its stated purpose is to maintain accurate voter lists by examining entries, identifying ineligible registrations and ensuring eligible voters are properly recorded.

Accurate electoral rolls are essential to conducting elections.

However, the revision process also raises questions about documentation requirements, notification procedures and opportunities for affected voters to challenge deletion decisions.

A legitimate voter incorrectly excluded from an electoral roll may face difficulties exercising the right to vote.

Conversely, inaccurate or duplicate registrations can undermine confidence in electoral administration.

The central policy challenge is maintaining accurate records without improperly excluding eligible citizens.

What Is the Opposition Asking the Court to Order?

The joint petition seeks several forms of judicial relief.

One request concerns the establishment of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The proposed committee would examine electoral-roll deletions and the systems used to implement the SIR.

Another request concerns greater public disclosure of deleted voter entries.

The petitioners want booth-wise information identifying deletions and explaining the reasons behind them.

They have also questioned the operation of electoral databases and procedures for restoring eligible voters.

Importantly, the petition states that it does not seek to reopen the Supreme Court's earlier determination concerning the Election Commission's authority to conduct the SIR.

Instead, it challenges aspects of implementation and institutional decision-making.

How Has the BJP Responded?

The Bharatiya Janata Party has rejected Opposition allegations of electoral manipulation.

Senior BJP leaders have argued that the Election Commission's clarification demonstrates that the Opposition's accusations are unfounded.

The BJP has also criticised Rahul Gandhi's approach, arguing that political parties should contest elections through democratic campaigning rather than undermine confidence in electoral institutions.

The Opposition maintains that seeking judicial examination of electoral procedures is a legitimate exercise of democratic accountability.

Both positions form part of the political debate.

The legal questions, however, must ultimately be assessed through evidence and the applicable constitutional and statutory framework.

Why Does the Case Matter?

The Election Commission is responsible for administering elections in a country with an exceptionally large electorate.

Public confidence depends on the institution's independence, transparency and adherence to legal procedures.

The dispute also raises an important question about collective decision-making.

When an institution consists of multiple commissioners, how should disagreements be recorded, considered and resolved?

A transparent answer matters because decisions concerning voter registration can affect electoral participation.

For ordinary voters, the practical issue is whether they can verify their registration status and obtain an effective remedy if an eligible entry is incorrectly removed.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the connected petitions on October 27.

The Court may consider the Commission's affidavit, the Opposition's requests and the need for additional records or responses.

No final judicial finding on the disputed allegations had been verified at the editorial cutoff.

Readers should distinguish between the allegations made in petitions, the Commission's formal defence and any subsequent judicial determination.

Reader Takeaway

The Election Commission says its SIR decisions were unanimous. Opposition petitioners are seeking independent scrutiny of the process.

The Supreme Court's examination may clarify how the Commission's internal procedures should be assessed and what additional safeguards are necessary for electoral-roll transparency.