The Supreme Court on Tuesday has granted petitioners 10 days to file a reply to the Election Commission of India’s affidavit defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, maintaining that a lawful exercise was approved unanimously by all three members of the poll panel.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise being conducted in several states ahead of elections.
In its affidavit, the ECI said the revision was neither arbitrary nor hasty, but authorised under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It described the decision as a considered policy measure approved by the full Commission.
The poll panel said periodic revision was necessary to maintain the accuracy of electoral rolls by deleting the names of deceased, shifted and duplicate voters, including eligible new voters. It added that the exercise was being conducted in accordance with due procedure after consultations with the chief electoral officers of the states concerned.
The ECI also defended the timeline and procedures, stating that voters had adequate opportunities to file claims and objections and that no eligible voter would be excluded without adherence to the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners, including opposition parties and civil society groups, have alleged that the exercise was being conducted hurriedly and without adequate consultation, risking the mass deletion of voters, particularly migrants, minorities and marginalised communities. They have sought a stay on the exercise and transparent guidelines to prevent wrongful deletions.
The petitions also question the exercise of powers by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and allege that decisions concerning the SIR were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for lead petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought time to file a rejoinder to the ECI’s counter-affidavit. He also urged the court to direct the preservation of file notings and internal communications to establish whether the disputed decisions were taken unanimously or unilaterally.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, raised concerns over Form 6 and the ECI’s statements regarding its modification.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the ECI, rejected the allegations, describing the submissions as rhetoric intended for public consumption.
In its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied allegations of unilateral decision-making and maintained that all decisions concerning the SIR had been taken unanimously. It also said Form 6, which is used to seek inclusion in electoral rolls, had not been amended.
The bench directed the petitioners to file comprehensive rejoinders within 10 days. The matter has been tentatively listed for November 17, 2026, after the Diwali vacation.
The connected petitions have been filed by several petitioners, including Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh, the Human Justice Organization, and others.
The pleas raise questions concerning Article 324 of the Constitution and the statutory framework governing the Election Commission’s functioning and decision-making under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.