The proceedings before the Supreme Court today, 5 October 2026, concerning the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls deserve serious attention.
The Supreme Court has not suspended the Chief Election Commissioner, Shri Gyanesh Kumar, nor has it concluded that the Election Commission has acted illegally.
The Court declined to grant the interim relief sought by the petitioners and made it clear that it cannot act merely on newspaper reports or allegations without examining the actual facts and records.
At the same time, the Court has taken the issues raised before it seriously. Notices have been issued to the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner, the other Election Commissioners and the Union Government.
The Court wants to know whether the decisions under challenge were taken collectively, by majority, or by the Chief Election Commissioner alone.
This is an important constitutional issue. The Election Commission is a constitutional authority, and its decisions must conform to the law and the prescribed decision-making procedure.
THE FORM 6 ISSUE
One of the most significant observations today concerns Form 6, which is the statutory form used for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll.
The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, made it clear that the modified Form 6 was not approved by the Supreme Court.
The Court wants to examine the original records and determine who authorised the modification.
This is particularly important because an additional declaration was incorporated into the online Form 6 in connection with the SIR process.
However, today’s observation does not establish that the Election Commission acted illegally. That question remains to be examined after the relevant records and responses are placed before the Court.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED
It would be premature to claim that today’s proceedings have proved that:
- The Chief Election Commissioner acted unilaterally.
- The SIR process is illegal.
- Voters were illegally deleted.
- The Election Commission deliberately violated the law.
- The Chief Election Commissioner should be removed or suspended.
These remain matters for judicial examination.
At the same time, the Court has made it clear that constitutional authorities must function within the framework of law and that the records relating to the disputed decisions must be examined.
THE LARGER ISSUE: PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
The Election Commission occupies a unique position in our democracy. Public confidence in the electoral process is as important as the electoral process itself.
Therefore, allegations concerning electoral rolls, voter deletions, changes in statutory forms or the manner in which decisions are taken within the Commission should be examined transparently and on the basis of documentary evidence.
Equally, allegations should not be treated as established facts until they are supported by evidence and examined by the competent authority or the Court.
The Supreme Court’s approach therefore provides an important constitutional balance:
NO PREMATURE CONCLUSION, BUT ALSO NO AVOIDANCE OF SCRUTINY.
The records will now have to speak for themselves.
For our democracy to remain strong, the Election Commission must enjoy institutional independence while ensuring complete transparency, accountability and strict adherence to the law.
Democratic Social Justice Party (DSJP) believes that electoral reforms must strengthen the confidence of every citizen in our electoral system. Genuine concerns regarding electoral rolls or the functioning of constitutional institutions must be addressed through facts, law and due process — not through political allegations alone.
Harikumar Menon
Vice President
Democratic Social Justice Party (DSJP)
State of Keralam
