Congress Accuses EC of Misleading Supreme Court Over SIR

The Congress on Tuesday criticised the Election Commission of India’s affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, describing it as “deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous”. Congress general secretary for communications Jairam Ramesh said the affidavit was damaging to the credibility of the constitutional body, according to a report by the Press Trust of India (PTI).

The dispute centres on allegations of changes to voter registration procedures, questions over the approval of SIR-related orders and claims that the Election Commission’s digital platform, ECINET, has exercised powers beyond its legal authority. The poll body has rejected the allegations, maintaining that the revision exercise was authorised by law and that the relevant decisions were approved unanimously by all three election commissioners.

The competing claims have brought the administration of electoral rolls and the Commission’s internal decision-making processes into focus as the legal challenge to the SIR continues before the Supreme Court.

Jairam Ramesh Accuses Election Commission of Deception

Reacting to the affidavit, Ramesh accused the Election Commission of using misleading arguments to defend its actions. In a post on X, he described the document as “extremely damaging” to the institution itself.

Taking a swipe at the poll body, Ramesh wrote: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. And when we have done it for a while, it comes out in a crooked style.”

He argued that the affidavit did not adequately address the objections raised by the Congress concerning voter registration requirements and the conduct of the revision exercise.

The Election Commission, however, has defended its position before the Supreme Court, describing the allegations against it as misconceived. Its counter-affidavit sought the dismissal of petitions challenging the actions of the Chief Election Commissioner and decisions taken by the Commission.

The disagreement reflects a broader dispute over whether the SIR process and its associated procedures have been implemented in accordance with electoral laws and the Commission’s constitutional responsibilities.

Dispute Over Form 6 and Voter Registration Declaration

One of the central issues raised by Ramesh concerns Form 6, which is used by eligible individuals to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls. The Congress leader alleged that the Election Commission had introduced a mandatory declaration linked to the form without following the prescribed legal procedure.

According to Ramesh, the Commission initially maintained that the new declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court. He claimed that the Court subsequently contradicted that position and that the poll body later argued that the declaration was a separate document rather than an amendment to Form 6.

Ramesh rejected this distinction, arguing that applicants could not submit Form 6 online without completing the mandatory declaration. He alleged that this made the claim that the form itself had not been amended misleading.

“First, it claimed that the new declaration attached to Form 6 was upheld by the Supreme Court, which the Court subsequently contradicted. Second, it now claims that the new declaration form is separate, and Form 6 was not amended. But this is a deception Form 6 could not be submitted online without filling this mandatory declaration,” Ramesh said.

The Congress leader also referred to a statement he said the Election Commission made on September 26, when it described the declaration as being attached to Form 6. He alleged that the Commission had subsequently changed its explanation and accused it of violating the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The Election Commission has rejected the allegation that Form 6 was amended. The disagreement therefore concerns not only the declaration’s status but also whether the procedure used to introduce it complied with the rules governing voter registration.

Congress Questions Unanimous Approval of SIR Orders

Ramesh also questioned the Election Commission’s claim that its principal SIR orders had received unanimous approval from all three members of the poll body.

He alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken unilateral decisions despite objections from the two other election commissioners. According to Ramesh, the objections concerned alleged violations and actions taken under the CEC’s orders.

“But the two ECs objected on record to grave violations and illegal actions taking place on the orders of the CEC their objections were disregarded. The ECs were not even informed and learnt of these decisions from the news. This is not unanimity but unilateral decision-making,” he said.

The Election Commission has presented a different account in its 248-page counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. According to PTI, the affidavit stated that the relevant SIR orders had been issued following unanimous decisions by all three members.

The orders specifically identified by the Commission were dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. The poll body said the decisions were taken in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Section 18 provides for the Commission’s work to be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with decisions taken by majority when its members disagree. The Election Commission argued that the three SIR orders were consistent with these provisions.

What the Election Commission Said About Its Decision-Making Process

In its affidavit, the Election Commission explained how files are processed and decisions are formally approved. According to the account reported by PTI, files first go to one election commissioner, then to the other commissioner and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Commission said approved decisions carry the signatures of all three members. It also argued that suggestions, observations or questions raised by an individual commissioner while a file is being processed do not, by themselves, constitute a formal decision of the Commission.

The affidavit further stated that when urgent orders are required and members are not available in person, approvals can be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded on the file.

The Commission maintained that the affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by all three members. It also described the allegations against the poll body as based on a single newspaper report and sought the summary dismissal of the petitions.

“The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate,” the affidavit stated, according to PTI. It was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the Commission.

The competing accounts leave the key question centred on the distinction between objections or comments made during the processing of files and formally recorded decisions. The Congress alleges that internal objections were disregarded, while the Commission maintains that the orders in question received the required unanimous approval.

ECINET Under Scrutiny Over Electoral Roll Control

Another major allegation raised by Ramesh concerns ECINET, the Election Commission’s digital platform. He alleged that the system had centralised control over electoral rolls and overridden the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are designated under the law to handle electoral registration responsibilities.

Ramesh claimed that evidence of EROs being overruled had emerged from several states conducting the SIR, including Goa, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. He argued that the alleged interference raised questions about whether decisions concerning electoral rolls were being taken by the legally designated authorities.

The Congress leader also criticised the Election Commission’s information technology division, alleging that it operated without sufficient transparency and had taken actions beyond its authority. He said the two other election commissioners had repeatedly raised concerns about ECINET and the functioning of the IT division.

According to Ramesh, the commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary about their concerns. He alleged that further revelations about the division’s functioning had emerged without resulting in changes to its operations or action on the issues raised.

These claims form part of the Congress’s wider criticism of the SIR process. The allegations question the relationship between the digital systems used to administer electoral rolls and the statutory responsibilities of officials involved in voter registration.

The available account does not establish that the alleged overrides occurred unlawfully. The claims remain part of the political and legal dispute surrounding the revision exercise.

Congress Alleges Misuse of Form 7 for Voter Deletions

Ramesh also described the SIR exercise as a “disaster”, alleging that violations had surfaced during implementation. He claimed that Form 7 had been misused to facilitate large-scale deletion of voters’ names in several states.

Form 7 is associated with objections to proposed inclusions and requests for deletion of names from electoral rolls. Ramesh alleged that the form had been used improperly during the revision process and argued that the Election Commission’s affidavit did not deny the accuracy of reports published by sections of the media.

He presented these allegations as further evidence of what he described as malpractice and violations of electoral law. The Election Commission, however, has defended the legality of the revision process and rejected the broader allegations made against it.

The claims about voter deletions, ECINET and Form 6 concern different parts of electoral roll administration, but they converge on a central issue: whether voter registration and revision procedures are being conducted transparently and in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

The allegations require examination against the relevant records, statutory provisions and evidence from the states concerned. The claims made by the Congress should not, on their own, be treated as established findings of legal wrongdoing.

Legal Framework Behind the Special Intensive Revision

The Election Commission has defended the SIR orders by referring to its constitutional authority under Article 324 and the provisions of Section 18 of the 2023 law governing the Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners.

Article 324 establishes the Election Commission’s constitutional role in supervising, directing and controlling elections. Section 18 sets out how the Commission conducts its business, including the principle of unanimity where possible and majority decision-making when members differ.

In its affidavit, the Commission argued that the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, followed unanimous decisions taken under this framework.

The Congress disputes the Commission’s account of how the decisions were reached and alleges that objections raised by two election commissioners were disregarded. The competing claims make the formal record of approvals and the distinction between internal discussions and final decisions important to understanding the dispute.

The Supreme Court proceedings provide the setting in which the legal challenges and the Commission’s defence are being presented. The affidavit is the poll body’s response to the petitions, not by itself a judicial determination of the allegations.

What Happens Next in the Voter Roll Revision Dispute?

The immediate dispute involves the legality of the SIR process, the status of the additional declaration associated with Form 6, the authority exercised through ECINET and the procedure used to approve the Commission’s orders.

The Election Commission has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions and has maintained that its decisions were authorised and unanimously approved. The Congress, meanwhile, has alleged procedural violations and questioned whether the Commission’s explanation accurately reflects the decisions and objections recorded internally.

The issues are distinct but interconnected. The Form 6 dispute concerns the requirements imposed on people seeking voter registration; the ECINET allegations concern the administration of electoral rolls; and the disagreement over unanimous approval concerns the Commission’s internal decision-making process.

The outcome will depend on the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the material placed before it. Until the allegations are examined and resolved through the relevant legal process, the Congress’s accusations and the Election Commission’s defence remain competing positions in an ongoing dispute over electoral roll revision.