CEC-SIR hearing: Supreme Court gives petitioners 10 days to reply to EC affidavit

On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the other two ECs.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted ten days to the petitioners to file a rejoinder (reply) to the Election Commission’s affidavit on pleas questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the poll panel. The court also issued notice on a fresh plea filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen who has claimed that changes were made to Form 6 during SIR in Bihar without the court’s approval.

The court is hearing the petitions questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, calling for an SIT probe against him and seeking to declare the nationwide SIR of electoral rolls illegal. A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter today. On the last date of hearing, the court had issued notice to the Election Commission of India.

Story continues below this ad

ECI’s Response: In the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the ECI has said that all the decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls were unanimously taken by the commission. It further said that SIR is legal, its process justified, and that the petitioners’ allegations relating to changes in voter registration procedures and decision-making process are misconceived. The EC’s affidavit, filed in response to a petition by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, said it “has been approved for filing… by a unanimous decision of the three members of the Election Commission, i.e., two Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.” The ECI also termed as “misleading” the contention that Form 6 was amended, and said that only the Additional Declaration annexed to Form 6 was amended “to introduce the concept “mapping”.”

Pleas before court: One of the petitions by Rakesh Kumar Singh referred to the alleged differences between CEC Kumar and Sandhu and Joshi and the objections raised by them. “Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not vest the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It vests those powers in a Commission,” said the plea. The petitioner urged the court to declare SIR, and all actions, decisions, directions, and measures taken under it, invalid from the very beginning and without legal authority. The petitioner argued that the SIR was undertaken without the necessary statutory or constitutional authority and without following the procedure required by law. The other petition by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi has sought a probe by an independent, high-powered judicial inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired judge of the top court. The court is also hearing petitions by the leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders over the similar matter.

Live Updates
Oct 27, 2026 01:00 PM IST
SIR hearing in Supreme Court Live Updates: Next hearing on November 17

Guruswamy: Preserve the files and the file notings...unanimous decision but the file doesn't indicate

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: The request is unfair.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi: This whole thing depends upon decision, consultation, unanimous not unanimous, we are only asking for...it should be preserved, it should be preserved.

CJI: We are aware of everything; we will examine everything.

The Court has posted all the matters for further hearing on November 17.

Oct 27, 2026 12:42 PM IST
SIR hearing in Supreme Court Live Updates: VC closed

Senior advocate Mathews Nedumpara argues.

The VC has been turned off.

Oct 27, 2026 12:35 PM IST
SIR hearing in Supreme Court Live Updates: Petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appears in a plea alleging tampering of Form 6.

CJI: We will see, we will examine.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh on behalf of one of the petitioner seeks one weeks time to file rejoinder to EC's affidavit.

Singh: The reply has come only yesterday, so give us one week time to file a rejoinder because I think there is a lot to be said in the rejoinder.

Guruswamy: My lords in that reply because I have a matter in that batch, the election commission accepts many of the charges that we are making. I will show my lords that. But if my lords would issue notice in this item 51 and hear it with the rest of the batch.

CJI: Notice we will issue.

CJI suggests 10 days time can be given to file the rejoinder.

Guruswamy: Please see the audacity of the institution, which justifies their tampering with this form which is sanctioned.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh for ECI: Reply has been filed. Rhetoric cannot be made for some other purpose.

CJI: I think 10 days time is better because the break is coming, you can utilise that.

Oct 27, 2026 10:50 AM IST
SIR hearing in Supreme Court Live Updates: ECI's affidavit

After the court had issued notice to the ECI on the last date of hearing, the poll body filed an affidavit before the court stating that the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls is legal, its process justified, and that the petitioners’ allegations relating to changes in voter registration procedures and decision-making process are misconceived.

Read- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/eci-supreme-court-affidavit-special-intensive-revision-sir-gyanesh-kumar-sukhbir-singh-sandhu-vivek-joshi-form-6-indian-express-report-10937935/

Oct 27, 2026 10:34 AM IST
SIR hearing in Supreme Court Live Updates: Bench

A three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will hear the petitions questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and SIR.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments