The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging the poll body’s functioning and alleging that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar
took decisions unilaterally. The court also granted two weeks to the petitioners to file a rejoinder to the Election Commission’s affidavit. The next hearing would be taken up on November 17.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter.
According to Live Law, senior advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, told the court that the petitions concerned the functioning of the Election Commission, including alleged tampering with online Form 6, used for new voter registration.
She also alleged that the ECI had issued a press note claiming that the Supreme Court had authorised such tampering.
Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice said, “We will examine.”
Guruswamy urged the court to issue notice, arguing that the Election Commission’s response accepted several of the allegations raised by the petitioners. The Chief Justice subsequently confirmed that notice was being issued.
During the hearing, Guruswamy questioned the poll body’s justification for the alleged tampering with Form 6, saying, “Please see the audacity of the institution justifying tampering with the Form.”
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, objected to the submissions, describing the rhetoric as being directed towards another purpose and arguing that it should not be permitted.
The proceedings also involved a discussion on the time required to respond to the ECI’s affidavit. Senior advocate Vikas Singh sought one week to file a rejoinder, stating that there was considerable material to be placed before the court.
The bench ultimately granted two weeks to file the rejoinder. The court also granted the Election Commission liberty to file the same counter-affidavit in other petitions concerning the issue or submit an additional affidavit in those matters.
Advocate Matthews Nedumpara subsequently raised the issue of maintainability of the petitions. According to Live Law, the court then shut off the audio-video feed.
ECI MAINTAINS SIR ORDERS WERE UNANIMOUS
The hearing comes a day after the Election Commission filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court asserting that all three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions taken with the collective consent of all members of the Commission.
In its counter-affidavit, the poll body rejected allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner had acted unilaterally. It also denied that Form 6 had been amended through the three SIR orders.
“There is no change in Form 6 vide the 3 SIR Orders, as sought to be alleged,” the ECI stated in its affidavit.
The petitions challenge the administrative functioning and decision-making process of the poll body amid allegations concerning the centralisation of the ERONET electoral roll database platform, changes to voter registration procedures and decisions relating to voter deletions during the SIR exercise.
The controversy intensified following a September 23 report by The Indian Express, which stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders allegedly issued without their knowledge.
The ECI has maintained that internal technical notes and written queries are standard procedure in a multi-member constitutional body and that final decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously.
The matter comes amid mounting political opposition to the electoral roll revision exercise, with Opposition parties demanding accountability from CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities.
The INDIA bloc is also scheduled to hold a symbolic public impeachment proceeding against the CEC on October 30, ahead of its November 1 ‘Dilli Chalo’ march at Ramlila Maidan, according to news agency ANI.
