CONGRESS ACCUSES ELECTION COMMISSION OF MISLEADING THE SUPREME COURT AS SIR CONTROVERSY DEEPENS
October 27, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 27, 2026: The Congress has sharply challenged the Election Commission of India’s defence of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, accusing the poll panel of presenting a misleading account of disputed decisions and questioning its claims that the exercise was conducted lawfully and unanimously.
The latest confrontation follows an affidavit submitted by the Election Commission to the Supreme Court, in which it maintained that decisions concerning the SIR were approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two other election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The Commission also denied that the statutory Form 6, used by individuals seeking inclusion in electoral rolls, had been amended as alleged by the petitioners.
The Congress rejected the Commission’s explanation in forceful terms, describing its defence as “deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous”. The party has argued that the affidavit does not adequately resolve the questions raised about the decision-making process within the constitutional body, particularly allegations that important measures were adopted without the knowledge or agreement of the other commissioners.
The controversy gained momentum after media reports alleged that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections to several SIR-related decisions over a period of months. Opposition parties have cited those reports to question whether the Commission’s internal procedures were followed and whether the public account of unanimous approval accurately reflects the discussions that preceded the orders.
The Election Commission has denied those allegations. In its affidavit, it explained that files move through the respective divisions and are placed before the commissioners in sequence before decisions are formally recorded and notified. It maintained that views expressed during deliberations form part of the decision-making process and that the final orders were approved in accordance with the applicable constitutional and statutory framework.
A central point of disagreement concerns Form 6. The Commission has maintained that the declaration introduced during the SIR is a separate document rather than an amendment to the statutory form itself. According to the poll panel, the declaration helps officials establish links between applicants and earlier electoral rolls, while applicants whose records cannot be matched may be asked to provide supporting documents.
The Congress and other Opposition parties dispute whether this explanation settles the legal questions surrounding the additional declaration and its introduction. They have argued that the changes could place further burdens on people seeking voter registration and have called for scrutiny of the procedures used to verify eligibility and revise electoral rolls.
The dispute is now before the Supreme Court, which is examining petitions challenging aspects of the SIR and the Commission’s decision-making process. The petitioners have sought access to relevant official records and a judicial examination of the circumstances in which the disputed orders were issued. The court has granted them ten days to respond to the Commission’s affidavit, allowing the legal contest to proceed.
The Election Commission, for its part, has urged the court to reject the allegations, arguing that the claims concerning unilateral decisions rely heavily on media reports and do not establish a legal basis for restraining the Chief Election Commissioner. It has also maintained that the SIR falls within its constitutional responsibility to supervise and conduct elections and maintain electoral rolls.
The confrontation has become a broader test of public confidence in the administration of elections. For the Opposition, the central issue is whether the revision process and the decisions governing it can withstand independent scrutiny. For the Commission, the issue is whether its established procedures and statutory authority are being accurately represented in the challenges brought against it.
The Supreme Court’s examination will be crucial in determining the legal status of the contested decisions. Until the court reaches its conclusions, the Congress’s accusations and the Election Commission’s rebuttal remain opposing positions in an unresolved dispute over electoral administration, institutional accountability and the integrity of voter registration in India.
