Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, said the Supreme Court must now determine whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) took its decisions unanimously during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise — a question that goes to the heart of the ongoing constitutional dispute over electoral roll procedures. His remarks followed the ECI's submission of a counter-affidavit before the apex court clarifying its internal decision-making process.

What the ECI's Affidavit Says

The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that Form 6 — the statutory document prescribed for inclusion of names in electoral rolls — had not been amended. The poll body, in its counter-affidavit, rejected as misleading allegations that it had altered the form through its SIR orders dated 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025, and 14 May 2026.

The ECI clarified that the declaration required under the SIR orders is a separate document and does not form part of Form 6, which can be amended only by the Central Government. The affidavit also stated that all decisions were ultimately taken unanimously by the Commission.

The Core Controversy: Was the CEC Acting Unilaterally?

According to Kumar, the central grievance underlying the ongoing agitation is whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had been taking decisions independently, without adequate consultation with the other Election Commissioners. The ECI's affidavit now asserts unanimity — but Kumar argued this creates a fresh legal question.

'The Election Commission's affidavit is very important because the main issue over which the agitation is taking place is that the Chief Election Commissioner used to take decisions on his own and not in consultation with others. Regarding this, the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court now clearly states that all decisions were ultimately taken unanimously,' Kumar said.

Key Legal Question Before the Supreme Court

Kumar said the Supreme Court must now examine the implications of the unanimity claim in light of objections reportedly raised by the two Election Commissioners at an earlier stage of the process. If decisions were indeed unanimous, the court will need to decide whether those earlier objections were subsequently withdrawn or deemed invalid.

'The Supreme Court now has to decide whether, if the decisions were unanimous, it should be understood that the objections raised by both Election Commissioners at one stage were withdrawn by them or were not considered valid. The Supreme Court is yet to decide this,' he said.

The Form 6 and Additional Declaration Debate

Kumar also addressed the controversy over whether the SIR exercise effectively changed the information demanded of applicants, even if the statutory Form 6 itself was left untouched. He acknowledged the ECI's position that no changes were made to Form 6, while noting that a separate declaration form was introduced to seek additional information from prospective voters.

'As far as Form 6 is concerned, the Election Commission's affidavit states that, according to the report, no changes were made. However, it is also true that additional information was sought in a declaration form by the CEC or an Election Commissioner, apart from Form 6. The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether the additional information sought actually changes Form 6 in the true sense,' Kumar added.

What Happens Next

The matter now rests with the Supreme Court, which must rule on two intertwined questions: whether the ECI's internal process satisfied the legal requirement of collective decision-making, and whether the introduction of a supplementary declaration form amounts to a de facto amendment of the statutory voter-registration process. A ruling could have significant implications for how electoral roll revisions are conducted ahead of upcoming state and national elections.