India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, adjourned a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and set the next hearing for 17 November 2026, giving the petitioners 10 days to reply to the poll panel’s counter-affidavit defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The adjournment means the court has not yet ruled on the substance of the challenge. It has simply set the timetable for the next stage: the petitioners respond in writing, and the case returns after the Diwali vacation.
What happened in court today
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard the batch of petitions, which challenge decisions of the Election Commission and, in particular, the role of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in the SIR exercise.
The Election Commission had filed its counter-affidavit on Monday, 26 October. On Tuesday, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for lead petitioner Rakesh Singh, asked for time to file a rejoinder — a written reply to that affidavit. The court granted the petitioners 10 days and listed the matter for detailed hearing on 17 November.
The court also issued notice on a fresh plea by Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, concerning changes said to have been made to Form 6, the form used to seek inclusion in the electoral roll, during the Bihar SIR. The Election Commission was given two weeks to file a supplementary affidavit on that plea, and the matter was tagged with the pending petitions.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, asked the court to direct that file notings and internal communications be preserved, arguing that those records are key to deciding whether the disputed decisions were taken unanimously or unilaterally. Chief Justice Surya Kant responded, according to reports of the hearing: “We know everything, we will examine.”
What is SIR, in plain terms
SIR stands for Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. It is a door-to-door-style revision of the voter list, intended to keep the rolls accurate.
According to the Election Commission’s affidavit, the exercise is authorised under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Commission says periodic revision is needed to remove the names of voters who have died, shifted address or been duplicated, while adding eligible new voters, and that voters have adequate opportunities to file claims and objections.
The petitioners, by contrast, say the exercise has been conducted hurriedly and without adequate consultation, and warn that it risks the wrongful deletion of voters, particularly migrants, minorities and marginalised communities. They have sought a stay on the exercise and transparent guidelines to prevent wrongful deletions.
That disagreement — a routine accuracy exercise, in the Commission’s account, versus a rushed exercise with exclusion risks, in the petitioners’ account — is at the heart of the case, alongside the narrower question of how decisions inside the three-member Commission were taken.
What the Election Commission told the court
In its joint affidavit, filed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Commission maintained that the SIR exercise was legally authorised and that the relevant orders were unanimously approved by all three members.
The affidavit said all three SIR orders — issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 — were unanimous decisions. It argued that differences in observations, suggestions or queries while a file moves between members cannot be treated as dissent, and explained that files ordinarily move sequentially through the Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner, with electronic approvals in urgent matters later recorded on the file.
On Form 6, the Commission said the form had not been amended — only the Centre has the power to amend it — and that the SIR declaration is a separate document that should not be treated as an amendment to Form 6.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Commission, rejected the petitioners’ allegations in court, describing them as rhetoric.
What the petitioners argued
The petitions allege that several Election Commission decisions, including those on SIR, were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. That allegation followed a report in The Indian Express on 25 September, which said the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months to decisions and orders concerning SIR, on the ground that they were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Besides lead petitioner Rakesh Singh, the petitioners include advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, the Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh and Dola Sen.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Sen, told the court that the Commission’s affidavit corroborated the petitioners’ case, and alleged that the poll body had tampered with Form 6 and wrongly claimed the Supreme Court had approved it.
The pleas raise questions under Article 324 of the Constitution, which deals with the Election Commission, and under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which governs the Commission’s functioning and decision-making.
What was NOT decided today
No ruling on the merits was given, and no stay on the SIR exercise was granted in Tuesday’s hearing. The court had earlier, when it first issued notice on 5 October, declined to pass an interim order suspending the Chief Election Commissioner, while observing that it would examine the law governing the Commission’s decision-making — and asking who would conduct elections if the CEC were restrained from functioning.
Tuesday’s order is therefore procedural, not final: it fixes who must file what, and when the arguments will be heard in detail.
Timeline
- 25 September 2026: The Indian Express reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times to SIR-related decisions.
- 5 October 2026: The Supreme Court issues notice on the petitions, declining an interim order suspending the Chief Election Commissioner.
- 26 October 2026: The Election Commission files its joint counter-affidavit, defending SIR and denying unilateral decision-making.
- 27 October 2026: The Supreme Court grants petitioners 10 days to file rejoinders, issues notice on Dola Sen’s Form 6 plea, and lists the case for 17 November.
- 17 November 2026: Next detailed hearing, after the Diwali vacation.
What happens on November 17
On 17 November, the court is expected to take up the detailed hearing with the petitioners’ rejoinders on record, alongside the Commission’s supplementary affidavit on the Form 6 plea. That hearing should clarify how the court intends to examine the central factual dispute — whether SIR decisions were unanimous, as the Commission says, or taken without the other commissioners’ concurrence, as the petitioners allege.
Until then, the SIR exercise itself continues under the existing legal position, and no finding has been made against any individual commissioner.
Frequently asked questions
What is SIR?
SIR is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls — a revision exercise intended to remove deceased, shifted or duplicate voters and add eligible new voters, so the voter list stays accurate.
What did the Supreme Court decide on 27 October?
It adjourned the case, gave petitioners 10 days to reply to the Election Commission’s affidavit, issued notice on Dola Sen’s Form 6 plea, and set the next detailed hearing for 17 November 2026. It did not rule on the merits of the challenge.
Did the court suspend the Chief Election Commissioner?
No. The court declined an interim suspension order when it first issued notice on 5 October, and Tuesday’s order contains no suspension.
What is Form 6?
Form 6 is the form used to seek inclusion in the electoral roll. The dispute is whether changes connected with the Bihar SIR amounted to an amendment of that form; the Commission says the form was not amended and the SIR declaration is a separate document.
Why does unanimity inside the Election Commission matter?
Because the petitioners say decisions were taken without the other two commissioners’ concurrence, while the Commission says every relevant order was unanimous. The court will need the file record — which is why preservation of file notings was raised — to test which account holds.
Who are the petitioners?
They include lead petitioner Rakesh Singh, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh, Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, and civil society petitioners including the Human Justice Organization.
Related coverage
Rahul Gandhi, who appears among the petitioners in this case, was recently in the news in a separate court matter, covered in Rahul Gandhi’s acquittal in the Sultanpur defamation case. More coverage is available in the World section.