ECI defends Sep 26 SIR press note amid Supreme Court scrutiny
Synopsis
On the same day the Supreme Court issued notice over whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar can unilaterally wield the ECI's powers, Commission sources pushed back against claims that a key September 26 press note — central to the SIR controversy — had been quietly pulled from its website. The two developments together signal a deepening constitutional and credibility crisis at India's top electoral body.
Key Takeaways
ECI sources on 5 October 2026 denied that the September 26 press note on SIR procedures was ever removed from the Commission's website.
The press note had modified Form 6 procedures, extended SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra , and carried the approval of the full Commission.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the ECI on a petition questioning whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar could individually exercise the poll body's statutory powers.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi , and Justice V.
Mohana also sought responses from all three Election Commissioners .
The court said it would require authenticated information before acting but noted it could annul any decision found to be unlawful.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday, 5 October 2026, firmly denied claims that it had removed the September 26 press note — which modified Form 6 procedures for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and directed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to collect additional documents from voters at their homes — from its official website. The denial came as legal and political scrutiny of the poll body intensified in New Delhi.
What the Press Note Said
Issued after a full-Commission meeting on 26 September 2026, the press note extended SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra, revised the notice-related procedure for SIR, and directly countered allegations of internal friction within the Commission.
'This Press Note is issued as per the decisions of the meeting of the Commission held on September 26, 2026 and has the approval of the full Commission,' the ECI had stated in the document.
An ECI source reiterated on Monday: 'The September 26 press note is available on the ECI website. Was never taken down.'
Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre and ECI
The ECI's clarification came on the same day the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the poll body on a petition challenging how the Commission's statutory powers are being exercised. The petition raised a pointed constitutional question: whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar was individually empowered to exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member Commission.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana also sought responses from all three Election Commissioners. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the credibility of the ECI had been undermined and that the CEC was acting contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body.
What the Court Observed
The CJI-led bench declined to make any pre-emptive order but made clear that the court retained the authority to strike down decisions if found unlawful. 'Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision,' the bench said.
Singh alternatively urged the court to direct that all ECI decisions be taken unanimously until the next date of hearing. The bench, however, noted that Commissioners were already expected to reach consensus and that, in the absence of unanimity, majority rule applied under the existing framework.
Broader Context
The controversy over the SIR process has triggered protests and drawn attention to questions of procedural propriety within the Commission. This is not the first time the internal functioning of the ECI has come under judicial review — the apex court had previously addressed questions around the appointment process for Election Commissioners following the repeal of an earlier collegium-based system. The latest petition adds to a pattern of legal challenges testing the boundaries of the poll body's institutional independence and internal decision-making authority.
With the Supreme Court expected to take up the matter again at the next date of hearing, the ECI's response to the court notice will be closely watched by opposition parties and electoral reform advocates alike.
Point of View
But it does not resolve the larger institutional question now before the Supreme Court: whether the Chief Election Commissioner has been acting within the multi-member statutory framework. That the apex court found the petition serious enough to issue notice — and to seek responses from all three Commissioners individually — signals judicial discomfort with the Commission's internal dynamics. The SIR process itself, which involves BLOs visiting homes to collect documents, remains contested on procedural and civil liberties grounds. A court ruling that any ECI decision was taken outside the statutory framework could have consequences well beyond this controversy, touching the legitimacy of electoral rolls in Delhi and Maharashtra ahead of future polls.
NationPress
5 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the September 26 ECI press note about?
The September 26, 2026 press note was issued by the Election Commission of India after a full-Commission meeting and modified Form 6 procedures for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), directing Booth Level Officers to collect additional documents from voters at their homes. It also extended SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra and addressed allegations of friction within the Commission.
Was the ECI's September 26 press note taken down from its website?
No, according to ECI sources who spoke on 5 October 2026, the press note was never removed. 'The September 26 press note is available on the ECI website. Was never taken down,' an ECI source said.
Why did the Supreme Court issue a notice to the ECI?
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the ECI on a petition questioning whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar was individually empowered to exercise powers vested in the multi-member Commission. Senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that the CEC's actions were contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body.
Who are the judges hearing the ECI powers case?
The petition is being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. The bench has sought responses from all three Election Commissioners.
What did the Supreme Court say about ECI decision-making?
The bench noted that Commissioners were expected to reach unanimous decisions and that, in the absence of unanimity, majority rule applied. It declined to order interim restrictions but said it could annul any ECI decision subsequently found to be unlawful.
