Politics
ECI tells Supreme Court all three SIR orders were unanimous
The dispute now tests who controls voter-list decisions and safeguards.
The dispute now tests who controls voter-list decisions and safeguards.
The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that all three orders starting the of electoral rolls were approved by all members. This challenges claims that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted alone. The orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, expanded the exercise from Bihar to other states and . The Commission cites and of the 2023 law governing it.
The petitions also challenge the documents voters must provide. The Commission says , used to add a name to the electoral roll, was not changed. The revision instead required a separate declaration linking applicants to earlier rolls. The Court must decide whether the Commission followed the law and whether its checks protect accurate rolls without making voting harder for eligible people.
The petitions placed before the Court questions about whether the orders were properly approved, whether the Commission acted within and , and whether the separate declaration created lawful safeguards for voter inclusion. The Court’s response would determine what records, procedures and documentation requirements must be tested. The affidavit made the Commission’s institutional decision-making process the immediate issue for examination.
The ECI said Form 6, prescribed under the , remains the application for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll. It rejected the allegation that the three SIR orders changed that statutory form, arguing that the SIR exercise used a separate declaration. The distinction matters because the documentation and verification process can affect how applicants establish eligibility for inclusion.
In a joint affidavit, the ECI said the June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, orders were decisions of the full three-member Commission, not unilateral acts by the CEC. It relied on of the Constitution and . The affidavit itself was also described as unanimously approved.
The May 14 order set the schedule for SIR in another 19 states and Union territories and completed the three orders cited in the later Supreme Court dispute. The ECI says the decision, like the June 2025 and October 2025 orders, was unanimously approved by the full Commission. The operational instructions remained distinct from the .
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Election Commission said the three orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions of the full Commission.
Petitions before the Supreme Court challenged the Commission’s functioning and alleged that the CEC took decisions without approval from the other two Election Commissioners. The challenge also raised concerns about SIR documentation and the treatment of , the statutory application used to seek inclusion in the . These claims placed institutional approval, legal authority and voter-inclusion safeguards before the Court.
The October order set the schedule for the next group of states and , expanding implementation beyond the initial phase. The ECI says the decision was approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The order formed part of the three-decision sequence now examined by the Supreme Court.