Supreme Court SIR Judgment 2026: ECI Power, Form 6, and the Limits of Electoral Roll Revision

The legal controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has moved well beyond the original question of whether the Election Commission of India has the power to conduct such an exercise.

That question was substantially answered by the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564. The Court upheld the Bihar SIR and recognized the Election Commission’s authority to undertake a special revision under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The controversy now concerns a different question: how that power was exercised after the judgment.

The subsequent dispute over the online version of Form 6, the operation of ECINet, internal objections recorded by two election commissioners, and the manner in which the three-member commission took certain decisions has brought the statutory limits of administrative power back into focus.

On 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court itself clarified an important point. It had not approved any modified Form 6. The Court indicated that it wanted to examine the records to determine what had been changed and by whom.

The significance of the present proceedings, therefore, lies in the distinction between power and its exercise. The May judgment recognized the power to conduct SIR. It did not provide advance judicial approval for every subsequent administrative, technological, or procedural step taken during its implementation.

The Statutory Foundation of Special Intensive Revision

The constitutional starting point is Article 324, which confers upon the Election Commission the superintendence, direction, and control of elections and the preparation of electoral rolls.

The principal statutory provision is Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Section 21(2) deals with ordinary revision of electoral rolls. Section 21(3), however, creates a distinct power. It provides that, notwithstanding Section 21(2), the Election Commission may, at any time and for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit.

That distinction was central to the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment.

The 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR order expressly invoked Article 324 and Section 21 of the 1950 Act. It directed a special intensive revision with 1 July 2025 as the qualifying date and placed the Electoral Registration Officer at the center of the process. The order required the ERO to ensure that eligible citizens were not excluded and that ineligible persons were not included.

The statutory scheme, however, does not end with Section 21.

Section 22 concerns correction of entries in electoral rolls. It specifically places the relevant decision with the Electoral Registration Officer, who may act on an application or on his own motion after such inquiry as he considers necessary.

Section 23 concerns inclusion of names in electoral rolls. It provides that a person whose name is not included may apply to the ERO and that the ERO, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to registration, shall direct inclusion after proper verification of facts in the prescribed manner.

Section 28 is equally important to the present controversy. It authorizes the Central Government, after consultation with the Election Commission, to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Among the matters expressly covered are electoral-roll particulars, claims and objections, final publication, revision and correction of rolls, and procedures for verification.

The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, are made within that statutory framework.

This matters because the Election Commission may have broad constitutional and statutory powers, but individual electoral entries continue to be governed by a statutory decision-making structure.

What the Supreme Court SIR Judgment 2026 Actually Decided

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564, the Supreme Court upheld the Bihar SIR.

The Court recognized that Section 21(3) gives the Election Commission an independent power to direct a special revision. The fact that the exercise is more intensive than an ordinary revision does not, by itself, make it unconstitutional.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded from the importance of maintaining accurate and credible electoral rolls. An electoral roll that contains the names of deceased persons, persons who have permanently shifted, or persons enrolled more than once can affect the integrity of the electoral process.

At the same time, the judgment did not convert Section 21(3) into an unlimited administrative power.

The special revision must remain connected to the purpose for which the power exists and must operate consistently with constitutional and statutory requirements. The Court considered whether the measures adopted by the ECI were manifestly arbitrary or disproportionate and concluded that the Bihar exercise did not cross that threshold.

The Evidentiary Status of Existing Electoral-Roll Entries

One important aspect of the judgment concerned the evidentiary status of existing electoral-roll entries.

A person’s previous inclusion in an electoral roll is significant, but it does not create an absolute and permanent immunity from verification. The presumption arising from an existing entry can be rebutted through a lawful revision process.

The judgment also maintained a distinction between electoral-roll verification and citizenship adjudication.

The Election Commission may require information relevant to eligibility for electoral registration. But deletion from an electoral roll cannot simply be treated as a final adjudication of citizenship by a constitutional court or competent citizenship authority.

The court also dealt with Aadhaar. Aadhaar could be accepted as an identity document, but it could not be treated as proof of citizenship.

These propositions form the core of the Supreme Court SIR judgment 2026.

They are important because they answer the constitutional challenge to the existence of the SIR power. They do not, however, answer whether every later administrative action taken during an SIR is lawful.

That distinction has become the center of the October proceedings.

Draft Deletions Are Not Final Deletions

The scale of the later SIR exercise has made the distinction between draft and final electoral rolls particularly important.

By late September 2026, reports indicated that approximately 13.3 crore names had been removed from draft rolls across around 30 states and union territories. The reported classifications placed approximately 71.5 percent in categories such as absent, permanently shifted, or “other,” around 21 percent as deaths, and approximately 7.5 percent as multiple enrollments.

These figures require considerable caution.

They are draft-stage figures.

A draft deletion is not necessarily a final deletion. The electoral-roll framework provides a mechanism for claims and objections, followed by disposal and final publication.

This distinction was itself built into the SIR process. The 24 June 2025 Bihar order contemplated house-to-house verification and subsequent claims and objections before final publication.

The ECI’s justification for intensive verification rests on familiar problems in electoral-roll administration: deaths, migration, duplication, and changes in residence. Those are legitimate concerns for any election authority.

The counterargument is equally straightforward. A process that requires an existing elector to produce fresh material within a short period may create a substantial burden, particularly for migrants, economically vulnerable persons, homeless persons, and citizens who do not possess older documentary records.

The two propositions should not be confused.

A large number of draft deletions does not establish that millions of eligible voters have been wrongly excluded. Equally, a legitimate objective does not establish that every individual deletion is correct.

The proper legal test is ultimately individual and procedural: Was the person entitled to remain on the roll, was the statutory procedure followed, and was there a meaningful opportunity to challenge the proposed deletion?

The final electoral rolls and the claims-and-objections record will therefore be more legally significant than the headline number of draft deletions.

The Role of the Electoral Registration Officer

The statutory position of the Electoral Registration Officer becomes particularly important when the SIR is administered through a central digital platform.

Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act place significant functions in the hands of the ERO.

The Registration of Electors Rules reinforce this structure. Rule 13 provides that a claim for inclusion is made in Form 6. Rule 26 deals with applications relating to correction and inclusion under Sections 22 and 23.

The point is not that technology cannot be used.

It plainly can.

The real question is whether the technology remains an instrument for implementing the statutory process or begins, in effect, to determine the legal outcome independently of the statutory officer.

That distinction becomes important in relation to reports concerning ECINet.

If an ERO has taken a decision after the verification required by law, a software platform cannot simply become an alternative decision-maker unless there is legal authority for the subsequent action.

The issue is therefore not technological in the narrow sense. It is a question of administrative law: who is legally authorized to make the decision, and can the technological system alter that decision without another legally authorized process?

That question remains open on the present record.

Internal Dissent Within the Election Commission

The institutional controversy intensified in September 2026 after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over approximately ten months.

The reported objections concerned, among other matters, the online Form 6, access to electoral databases, restoration of names that had been wrongly flagged, and aspects of IT-related administration.

One reported note described a particular step as “unauthorised and illegal”.

That language should not, however, be treated as a judicial finding.

A written objection by a member of a multi-member constitutional body establishes that the objection was recorded. It does not establish that the objection was legally correct.

The ECI’s position was that such observations were part of internal deliberation and that major SIR decisions were taken unanimously. The Commission subsequently met on 26 September 2026 and announced a series of administrative measures concerning agendas, minutes, IT modules, ECINet review, field verification and the use of forms.

The September 26 note is significant, but it should be read carefully.

It records that the Commission would review ECINet through a committee headed by a senior Deputy Election Commissioner and including an independent IIT/IIIT expert. It also stated that field officers would have role-based access according to their statutory powers.

The Commission further announced that, outside an active SIR period, forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would be used.

These measures demonstrate that the Commission itself considered questions of institutional procedure and technological compliance sufficiently important to warrant formal review.

They do not, without more, establish that earlier decisions were unlawful.

The Form 6 Controversy

The Form 6 issue is narrower and, legally, more precise.

Form 6 is the prescribed application for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. The statutory form identifies Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 as its legal basis.

During the 2026 SIR process, an additional declaration appeared in the online version of Form 6. It required applicants to provide information concerning whether the applicant, or specified relatives, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during an earlier intensive revision.

The controversy is not simply whether the ECI can collect information relevant to an SIR.

The deeper question is whether a substantive requirement can be introduced through an online version of a statutory form without following the legal procedure governing the form and without a valid decision of the Commission.

That distinction is crucial.

The May 2026 judgment considered the documentation framework of the Bihar SIR, including the declaration associated with the June 2025 order. The judgment recognised that, in the context of an intensive revision, the ECI was not necessarily confined to the ordinary documentation framework in precisely the same manner as during routine revision.

But the online Form 6 alteration at issue in October 2026 was a later administrative development.

The Commission’s 26 September note stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the ordinary forms prescribed by the 1960 Rules would apply during non-SIR periods.

That statement became significant when the matter reached the Supreme Court again.

On 5 October 2026, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified Form 6. The Court indicated that it wanted to examine the records and determine who had made the change.

This does not amount to a final judicial finding that the additional declaration was unlawful.

It does, however, make one point clear: the May 2026 judgment cannot be cited as though the Supreme Court had specifically approved the later online modification of Form 6.

The legal issue must therefore be decided from the actual record: the authority under which the field was introduced, the decision-making process followed, the precise relationship between the statutory form and the SIR declaration, and the manner in which the online system implemented the requirement.

What Section 28 Means for Form 6

The Form 6 controversy also brings Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act into sharper focus.

Section 28 authorises the Central Government, after consultation with the Election Commission, to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

The provision expressly contemplates rules concerning electoral-roll particulars, claims and objections, the final publication of rolls, revision and correction, and verification procedures.

That legislative structure is relevant because the prescribed forms are not merely administrative stationery.

They are part of a statutory and regulatory framework.

An online portal can undoubtedly provide a digital mechanism for completing a prescribed form. But if the portal introduces a new substantive eligibility requirement, the legal question becomes whether the addition is authorised by the Act, the Rules, a valid SIR order or some other lawful source of power.

That question should not be answered merely by examining the appearance of the form on a website.

The underlying legal authority must be identified.

ECINet: Software Cannot Become a Substitute for Law

The same principle applies to ECINet.

Digital administration can make electoral-roll revision faster and more transparent. It can also introduce a different category of risk: a decision taken by a statutory officer may be affected by a system designed elsewhere.

That is why the reported Goa incident involving names allegedly removed after they had already been verified has acquired significance in the present debate.

The correct legal question is not whether a software error occurred. Software errors can occur in any large administrative system.

The question is what legal mechanism exists to detect, reverse and remedy the error.

If an ERO has verified an elector and a software process subsequently reverses that result without a fresh statutory decision, the issue potentially affects the allocation of legal responsibility between the ERO and the central administrative system.

The ECI’s decision to review ECINet for compliance with the Acts and Rules is therefore relevant.

But again, it should not be described as an admission of illegality.

The findings of that review and the underlying technical record will determine whether the concern is merely operational or raises a deeper question of statutory compliance.

What the October 2026 Supreme Court Proceedings Actually Decide

The October proceedings should not be portrayed as an overturning of the May judgment.

They are not.

The Supreme Court’s May judgment remains the principal authority on the ECI’s power to conduct the Bihar SIR.

The October proceedings concern subsequent implementation questions.

The Court has now made clear that it did not approve a modified Form 6 and wants the relevant records before deciding what happened.

The Court has also issued notice in proceedings challenging the manner in which certain decisions were allegedly taken.

The question of collective decision-making is particularly important because the Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body.

The existence of dissent does not itself invalidate a decision. A member may disagree and still participate in a lawful decision of the Commission.

The relevant question is whether the decision was actually made by the Commission in the manner prescribed by the governing law.

That is a matter of record.

Until the files, minutes, authorisations and relevant digital records are before the Court, it would be premature to conclude that any individual Commissioner acted beyond authority.

It would be equally premature to assume that every disputed administrative act was valid merely because the Commission subsequently described its major SIR decisions as unanimous.

The judicial process is now directed towards the underlying record.

The Difference Between Deletion and Citizenship

Another point deserves emphasis because it has frequently become blurred in public discussion.

An electoral roll determines who is registered as an elector under the applicable election law. A person’s removal from that roll is therefore an important electoral consequence.

But it should not automatically be described as a judicial declaration that the person is not an Indian citizen.

The Supreme Court’s May 2026 reasoning recognised the distinction between electoral-roll verification and citizenship determination.

That distinction remains important during the continuing SIR process.

The ECI can verify whether statutory conditions for electoral registration are satisfied. It can also correct or delete entries in accordance with the law.

But the legal consequences of an electoral-roll deletion must not be exaggerated beyond what the electoral law itself provides.

For a lawyer, the distinction is more than semantic. It determines the nature of the remedy, the relevant authority and the statutory provisions that must be invoked.

The Claims-and-Objections Stage Is the Real Safeguard

The ultimate test of an intensive revision is not the number of names appearing in a draft deletion list.

It is whether the statutory corrective machinery works.

The claims-and-objections process must provide a meaningful opportunity for an affected elector to demonstrate eligibility, correct an erroneous entry, contest a proposed deletion and secure restoration where the deletion was mistaken.

This is particularly important where the original deletion is based on categories such as absence, migration or an alleged duplicate entry.

The ECI has announced measures intended to reduce the burden on affected electors, including home visits by Booth Level Officers in appropriate cases, help desks and special camps for vulnerable groups, and greater use of online hearings.

Those measures are significant from an administrative perspective.

But the central legal question remains unchanged: whether the statutory process ultimately produces a correct electoral roll while giving affected persons a genuine opportunity to challenge errors.

Five Issues That Remain Open

The present litigation leaves five questions of particular importance.

1. First: Who authorised the additional Form 6 declaration? The Supreme Court has sought the record. The answer should come from the contemporaneous authorisation and decision-making documents rather than subsequent explanations.
2. Second: Has the modified online Form 6 been completely withdrawn? The ECI has stated that the SIR declaration would not apply outside an active SIR period, and reports indicate that it was removed from the online form in States where SIR had concluded. The precise technical status of the portal remains relevant.
3. Third: What is the legal status of the 14 internal objections? The existence of objections is one question. Whether they were subsequently considered and resolved through a valid decision of the Commission is another.
4. Fourth: Can ECINet override an ERO decision? The answer will depend upon the statutory authority governing the particular action and the actual architecture of the system.
5. Fifth: What happens to the draft deletions after claims and objections? The final electoral rolls—not the preliminary deletion figures—will show the actual electoral consequence of the SIR.

Conclusion

The present SIR controversy should not be reduced to a simple argument that the Election Commission either possesses or does not possess the power to conduct an intensive revision.

The Supreme Court has already answered that question in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564.

The ECI possesses the power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and Section 21(3), subject to the constitutional and statutory limits recognised by the Court.

The harder question is what happens after that power is exercised.

A lawful power must still be exercised through a lawful process.

The statutory role of the Electoral Registration Officer, the rules governing electoral-roll applications, the prescribed Form 6, the Commission’s collective decision-making process and the technological systems used to implement those decisions cannot be treated as separate from the legality of the SIR itself.

The October proceedings are therefore significant not because they undo the May judgment, but because they test the next layer of the problem: whether the machinery used to implement a legally valid SIR itself remained within the law.

For advocates and constitutional-law researchers, that is where the real litigation now lies.

The decisive documents will be the authorising orders, the Commission’s minutes, the internal file notes, the technical records concerning ECINet, the precise version of Form 6 used at each stage, and the final outcome of the claims-and-objections process.

The Supreme Court SIR judgment 2026 established the legal foundation for the exercise. The proceedings now before the Court will determine how far that foundation extends when individual administrative decisions, statutory forms and digital systems are placed under judicial scrutiny.

Need Legal Advice on SIR, Electoral Roll Deletion or Form 6 Issues?

The Supreme Court SIR judgment 2026 has clarified the Election Commission’s power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls—but important questions concerning Form 6, deletion of names from electoral rolls, claims and objections, ECINet, Electoral Registration Officers and the legality of subsequent administrative decisions remain relevant.

If your name has been deleted or marked for deletion from the electoral roll, your Form 6 application has been rejected, you have received a notice during SIR, or you are concerned about wrongful exclusion from the voter list, taking legal advice at the appropriate stage can make a significant difference.

Do not wait until the final electoral roll is published if your right to vote or your family’s electoral registration may be affected. The earlier the records, notices and deletion reasons are examined, the better the opportunity to identify the appropriate legal remedy.

Consult an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate

Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

Legal consultation and assistance may be considered in matters involving:

• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls
• Deletion of names from voter lists
• Form 6 rejection or disputed Form 6 requirements
• Claims and objections against electoral-roll deletion
• Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decisions
• Wrongful exclusion from electoral rolls
• Election Commission proceedings
• Constitutional and administrative law challenges
• High Court and Supreme Court remedies in appropriate cases

Your Electoral Right May Depend on Acting in Time

If you believe that your name has been wrongly excluded, do not rely only on informal assurances. Have the notice, electoral-roll entry, Form 6 application, supporting documents and relevant orders examined by an experienced lawyer before the statutory opportunity to object expires.

Professional legal advice can help you understand where you stand, what the law permits, and what remedy may be available in your particular case.

📞 Call: 9650499965

💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611

📧 Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Adv. Tarun Choudhury — Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

Legal advice depends on the facts and documents of each individual matter. Contacting an advocate does not by itself create an advocate-client relationship or guarantee a particular legal outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions: Supreme Court SIR Judgment 2026

1. What Did the Supreme Court Decide About the SIR of Electoral Rolls in 2026?

The Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564, upheld the Election Commission of India’s authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. However, the judgment does not automatically validate every subsequent administrative or technological measure adopted during the SIR.

2. Can the Election Commission Delete a Person’s Name From the Electoral Roll During SIR?

The Election Commission has statutory authority to revise electoral rolls, but a draft deletion is not necessarily a final deletion. Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, together with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, provide mechanisms for correction, inclusion, claims and objections. A person whose name is proposed for deletion should therefore examine the reason for deletion and use the prescribed remedy within the applicable period.

3. Has the Supreme Court Approved the Modified Form 6 Used During SIR?

No. During the October 2026 proceedings, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified Form 6. The Court indicated that it would examine the relevant records concerning the additional Form 6 declaration and determine how and by whom the modification was made. The May 2026 SIR judgment should therefore not be treated as judicial approval of every subsequent modification to the online Form 6.

4. What Can I Do if My Name Is Wrongly Deleted From the Electoral Roll During SIR?

If your name has been wrongly deleted or marked for deletion, you should examine the draft electoral roll, deletion reason, notice, Form 6/Form 8 records and supporting documents and use the applicable claims-and-objections or correction procedure within the prescribed time. Where a serious legal or constitutional issue arises, an appropriate remedy before the competent authority or court may also need to be considered. Early legal advice can be important because the available remedy may depend on the stage of the electoral-roll revision.

5. Does Deletion From the Electoral Roll Mean That a Person Has Been Declared a Non-Citizen?

No. Deletion from an electoral roll and a final determination of citizenship are legally distinct matters. The Supreme Court SIR judgment 2026 recognised the distinction between electoral-roll verification and citizenship adjudication. Removal of a person’s name from the electoral roll does not, by itself, constitute a judicial declaration that the person is not an Indian citizen. The legal consequences depend on the statutory proceeding and the basis on which the electoral entry was removed.

Key Takeaways: Supreme Court SIR Judgment 2026

• The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India’s power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• The Supreme Court SIR judgment 2026 does not mean that every subsequent SIR-related administrative action is automatically lawful. The legality of individual implementation measures must still conform to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
• Draft deletion of a voter’s name is not the same as final deletion from the electoral roll. Claims and objections provide an important statutory opportunity for affected voters to challenge errors before final publication.
• Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 are particularly important because they govern correction and inclusion of names and reinforce the role of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
• Form 6 remains a central legal issue. The Supreme Court clarified during the October 2026 proceedings that it had not approved a modified Form 6 containing an additional SIR-related declaration.
• The Form 6 controversy raises a statutory-authority question: whether a substantive requirement can be introduced through an online portal without proper authority under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, or a valid SIR order.
• ECINet and electoral-roll software cannot operate independently of statutory authority. A key unresolved question is whether a digital system can effectively reverse or override a decision already taken by an Electoral Registration Officer without another legally authorised process.
• Internal dissent within the Election Commission is not, by itself, proof of illegality. The reported objections of two Election Commissioners must be distinguished from any eventual judicial finding about whether the Commission’s decisions were lawfully made.
• Deletion from an electoral roll is not the same as a final determination of citizenship. Electoral-roll verification and citizenship adjudication are legally distinct processes.
• Aadhaar may assist with identity verification but cannot by itself be treated as proof of Indian citizenship, consistent with the Supreme Court’s treatment of the issue in the May 2026 judgment.
• The 13.3-crore reported draft deletions should not be treated as the final number of voters excluded. The legal significance of the exercise will ultimately depend upon claims, objections, restoration of wrongly deleted names and the final electoral rolls.
• The October 2026 Supreme Court proceedings do not overturn the May 2026 SIR judgment. Instead, they examine whether subsequent implementation—including Form 6, administrative decisions and digital systems—remained within the legal framework.
• The most important unresolved issues are who authorised the modified Form 6, whether the change has been completely withdrawn, how the 14 internal objections were dealt with, whether ECINet can override ERO decisions, and how the claims-and-objections process will affect the final electoral rolls.

Summary

Supreme Court SIR Judgment 2026: The Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s power to conduct Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, but subsequent issues involving Form 6, ECINet, Electoral Registration Officers, draft voter deletions and internal ECI decision-making remain subject to legal scrutiny.

Primary and Contemporaneous Sources

1. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564 — the May 27, 2026 judgment upheld the Bihar SIR and is the central authority for the ECI’s power under Article 324 and Section 21(3). The Supreme Court Observer records the citation, judgment date, bench and holding, and provides access to the judgment. https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-ecis-revision-of-electoral-rolls-in-bihar-sir-association-for-democratic-reforms-v-election-commission-of-india/
2. Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Sections 21, 22, 23 and 28 are the statutory backbone of the article. Section 21(3) expressly empowers the ECI to direct a special revision; Sections 22 and 23 address correction and inclusion; Section 28 provides the rule-making power. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/18881
3. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — Rule 13 provides that claims for inclusion are made in Form 6, while Rule 26 deals with applications concerning correction and inclusion under Sections 22 and 23. The official legislative text identifies Form 6 with Rules 13(1) and 26. https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/07/
4. ECI’s 24 June 2025 Bihar SIR Order — the order invoked Article 324 and Section 21 and placed the Electoral Registration Officer at the centre of the revision process.
5. ECI’s 26 September 2026 Position on Form 6 and ECINet — the Commission stated that the SIR Form 6 declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court, that ordinary statutory forms would be used outside SIR, and that ECINet would undergo a review for statutory compliance. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/today-india-news-live-updates-andhra-bengal-weather-26-september-2026-cjp-protest-gyanesh-kumar-goa-sir-congress-bjp-weather-10894504/lite/
6. October 5, 2026 Supreme Court Proceedings — the Court clarified that it had not approved a modified Form 6 and sought the underlying record concerning the modification. https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/modified-form-6-supreme-court-eci/
7. Internal Dissent Reporting — the reported 14 objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are treated in the article as reported internal objections, not as judicial findings of illegality. The ECI’s subsequent response and 26 September meeting are separately presented. https://theprint.in/india/ecinet-to-be-reviewed-letter-to-cabinet-secy-was-not-related-to-policy-matters-says-eci/3054381/
8. Draft Versus Final Electoral Rolls — the statutory architecture and the Bihar SIR process expressly distinguish preliminary/draft rolls from final publication following claims and objections. https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-ecis-revision-of-electoral-rolls-in-bihar-sir-association-for-democratic-reforms-v-election-commission-of-india/

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965