SUPREME COURT OPENS FRESH LEGAL BATTLE OVER VOTER ROLL REVISION AS ELECTION COMMISSION DEFENDS ITS AUTHORITY
October 27, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 27, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted petitioners ten days to respond to the Election Commission of India’s detailed defence of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, bringing the legality and decision-making process behind the voter verification exercise under renewed judicial scrutiny.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the petitioners to submit their rejoinder to the poll panel’s 248-page affidavit. The Election Commission maintained that the SIR was authorised by law and that the relevant decisions had received unanimous approval from all three members of the Commission.
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken important decisions unilaterally. The Commission argued that observations, questions or objections raised by individual commissioners while official files were being processed did not, by themselves, constitute formal decisions of the institution.
The controversy followed a report by The Indian Express alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on multiple occasions to SIR-related decisions that they said had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The resulting dispute prompted political criticism and demands for accountability concerning the Commission’s internal decision-making procedures.
A separate dispute concerns Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible individuals seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. The Election Commission denied amending the form, arguing that the declaration introduced during the SIR was a separate document intended to help establish links between applicants and earlier electoral rolls. However, the Commission acknowledged that the way the declaration appeared on its online application platform could create the impression that Form 6 itself had been altered. It said the online process would be separated into two components to distinguish the statutory form from the additional declaration.
The court also issued notices to the Election Commission and other respondents on a fresh petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen, which alleged that changes were made to Form 6 during the Bihar SIR without the Supreme Court’s approval. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, challenged the Commission’s position regarding the court’s earlier proceedings. Chief Justice Surya Kant indicated that the issues raised would be examined.
The legal challenge extends beyond the form used for voter registration. One petition cited concerns about approximately 1.2 crore voters in Maharashtra who were reportedly flagged for “logical discrepancies” during the revision exercise. Another petition, filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and a co-petitioner, challenges the requirement that people excluded from Delhi’s draft electoral rolls reapply through Form 6. The Supreme Court scheduled that matter for October 28.
The Election Commission has sought dismissal of the petitions, contending that the allegations rely substantially on media reporting rather than legally established evidence. The petitioners, however, are seeking judicial examination of the circumstances surrounding the SIR orders and the Commission’s procedures.
With the petitioners now given time to respond, the dispute is set to continue through the courts. The proceedings carry significant implications for the administration of electoral rolls, the transparency of election authorities and the legal safeguards governing the inclusion of eligible citizens in the voting process. No final determination on the contested allegations has been made in the proceedings reported on Tuesday.
