Supreme Court Grants 10 Days Rejoinder on Election Commission SIR Defence

New Delhi, October 27, 2026: The Supreme Court on Monday gave petitioners 10 days to file a rejoinder to the Election Commission of India's 248-page defence of its special intensive revision of electoral rolls. It deferred detailed hearing on the batch of petitions challenging the revision exercise and the decision-making behind it.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said detailed arguments could not start yet. The Commission's counter-affidavit had come only on Monday night. Petitioners deserved a fair chance to answer it before the court looked at the merits.

The lead petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh, with connected matters, attacks how the Commission ordered and carried out the revision. Petitioners alleged Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took unilateral decisions on questions that needed collective approval. At the centre are the orders directing the revision of electoral rolls, which affect inclusion and exclusion of voters on a large scale.

Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, who filed the affidavit for the Commission, denied that charge. He said the exercise was legally authorised and backed by unanimous decisions of all three members. All three orders on the revision, dated June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous, the affidavit said. It also rejected the claim that Form 6 had been altered to hurt applicants' rights.

Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen's fresh plea made Form 6 a separate contest. Sen alleged changes were made to Form 6 during the Bihar revision without the Supreme Court's approval. The bench sought the Commission's response and said the issue would be heard with the main batch.

Petitioners' counsel said they needed time because the counter was bulky and raised questions of fact and procedure. The bench accepted the request and gave 10 days for a rejoinder. It said the rejoinder should meet the Commission's defence, including the claim of unanimity and the explanation on Form 6.

On records, the petitioners asked for a direction to the Commission to preserve the full file and place it before the court. The bench assured counsel it would examine all issues raised, including unanimity, the Form 6 question and the plea for preservation and production of complete records.

The batch is likely to come up next on November 17, 2026. Both sides treat that date as important because any direction on records, forms or the legal basis of the orders will bear on the progress of the revision and the voter lists for coming polls.

What special intensive revision orders say

The Commission's affidavit says the three orders under challenge set the timetable, the method and the duties of electoral officers. It calls them decisions of the full Commission, not directions by the Chief Election Commissioner alone. Petitioners dispute that reading. They want the files and minutes called for to show how the decisions were taken.

That is why unanimity has taken centre stage. The Election Commission is a multi-member body. Petitioners say when an order touches rights across constituencies, the file must show collective consideration and approval. The Commission's answer is that the files show such approval for each order and the claim of unilateral action has no basis.

No view on merits has been expressed. By granting time for a rejoinder and issuing notice on the new plea, the court has kept all questions open. Counsel said the rejoinder would answer the affidavit paragraph-wise and list the exact documents the petitioners want produced.

Door-to-door verification remains the hard part of any electoral roll revision. Claims and objections have to be invited, Forms 6, 7 and 8 decided, and draft and final rolls published. A slip at any stage can cause a wrongful deletion or a wrongful inclusion. Petitioners say strict use of approved forms and transparent records is the only safeguard for voters who cannot track every notice.

Form 6 dispute and Bihar revision

Form 6 is the application a new elector files to seek inclusion of name in the roll. A small change in wording, declarations, papers asked for or mode of filing can hit first-time voters, migrants and young electors who apply in large numbers during a revision. Sen's plea alleges alterations were made to Form 6 during the Bihar drive without the court's approval.

The Commission denies any unauthorised change. Its affidavit says the form used was in line with the rules and its instructions. The bench said the dispute would have to be settled on the notified forms, the instructions issued for Bihar, and the specimens actually used in the field.

Lawyers who handle revision cases expect a side-by-side comparison if the dispute persists. That would mean calling for the approved Form 6, any revised version said to have been circulated, the date and authority for the change, and the number of applications received on each version. Issuing notice on Sen's plea shows the court wants the Commission's answer on record first.

Timing adds pressure because a revision already under way leaves less room for correction. Petitioners say if a form was changed mid-course, voters who had applied and officers who had processed those papers would be treated differently. The Commission says no voter was prejudiced and all applications went through a uniform procedure.