New Delhi: On Tuesday, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took up petitions asking a deceptively simple question: did the Election Commission take its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) decisions collectively, or did the Chief Election Commissioner act without the other two members? No account of today’s courtroom arguments was available at the time of writing. Here is the whole argument as it stands from the filings and earlier hearings.

The petitioners’ case

Three sets of petitions are being heard together. One, by Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks a declaration that a multi-member body like the Commission cannot be run unilaterally. It asks the Court to examine the primary records and, as interim relief, to suspend Gyanesh Kumar. A second, by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks to quash the 14 disputed decisions and asks for an inquiry by a retired judge assisted by cybersecurity experts. The third is a joint petition by Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge and leaders of 11 other opposition parties.

Their shared argument rests on reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026, covering the SIR steps, the Form 6 declaration, deletions and the Commission’s IT systems. The petitioners say decisions were taken in the Commission’s name without proper consultation. Counsel have pointed to Section 10 of the 1991 Act, which governs how the Commission conducts business, and to the Supreme Court’s earlier Anoop Baranwal ruling. The Gandhi petition also asks that every SIR decision be taken collectively and minuted under Section 18 of the 2023 Act, that no voter be deleted without notice and a hearing, that eligible people in poll-bound states such as Punjab be allowed to apply until the last date, that the SIR be suspended in all states, and that a retired Supreme Court judge lead an independent audit of deletions and database access.

The Commission’s case

In an affidavit filed on Monday and approved by all three members, the Commission argues:

• The SIR orders of June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were each approved unanimously.
• Files normally move first to one Election Commissioner, then the other, and then the CEC.
• A member’s note, query, suggestion or observation recorded during the processing of a file isn’t by itself a decision of the Commission. Approved decisions are recorded in official files before being notified.
• Form 6 was not amended through the three orders. The additional SIR declaration is a separate document.
• It never released or authorised the release of any internal file to the media.
• It questions the basis of the petitions and seeks their dismissal.

What the bench has said so far

On October 5 the Court issued notice but declined to suspend the CEC without hearing the other side. The CJI said that if there was neither unanimity nor a majority as the law requires, the Court could annul the decisions. He also said the Court had not approved any modified Form 6, which contradicted the Commission’s earlier claim that the Court had upheld the declaration, and added that it would see who had modified it once the record was produced. On October 15, the bench issued notice on the opposition leaders’ petition and said it would ask one petitioner about his conduct, without naming him. It also said nobody could browbeat the judiciary, after lawyers referred to a march by opposition leaders to the Court.

The points still in dispute

• Unanimity or consultation: The affidavit says the final orders were unanimous. Reports of the Commissioners’ notes suggest many were written after decisions had been taken, which the affidavit doesn’t answer.
• Notes versus decisions: Whether a recorded dissent counts as a decision, or merely as part of consultation, is likely to matter legally.
• Form 6: The Commission says the form wasn’t amended. The petitioners and the Court’s own remarks raise whether an added declaration changes the statutory form without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
• Records: Whether the Court calls for the files and notings, as the petitioners want.

What happens next

The Court could call for the original records, issue directions on how the Commission records its decisions, or hear the petitions in more detail. The opposition has rejected the affidavit and announced nationwide protests, including a CPI human chain on Tuesday.

 

© Copyright 2026. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Vygr Media.