At a New Delhi press conference with activists Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora, Bhushan challenged the Commission’s October 26 counter-affidavit defending decisions behind the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The allegations remain disputed, and the Supreme Court has not found that the affidavit was fabricated.
The central disagreement concerns whether the three-member Commission collectively authorised the revision and associated administrative changes. The Commission maintains that its principal SIR orders were approved unanimously. Bhushan and the activists argued that records disclosed under the Right to Information Act and objections attributed to two election commissioners contradicted that position.
Bharadwaj said an information request seeking records of the decision to undertake the nationwide exercise had produced a response stating that no relevant file was available. She said the Commission’s appellate authority subsequently indicated that no decision to launch the nationwide SIR had been taken in 2025. She questioned how that response could be reconciled with the affidavit’s account of unanimous approvals.
The disputed affidavit identifies orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, as having received collective approval. The activists demanded the underlying files, minutes and electronic communications to establish when the decisions were made and which commissioners agreed to them.
Bhushan also challenged the Commission’s explanation that urgent decisions communicated electronically could be formally incorporated into official records afterwards. He argued that contemporaneous communications were necessary to establish whether proper approval had actually been obtained, rather than merely recorded retrospectively.
Another disputed issue involves objections attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The activists said these showed disagreement over significant operational decisions, including the centralisation of electoral roll management. The Commission has characterised individual observations as part of its consultative process rather than evidence that its final decisions lacked consensus.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar heads the panel alongside Sandhu and Joshi. The Commission has denied allegations that Kumar unilaterally authorised the revision and has maintained before the court that the exercise and its principal orders complied with the law.
The controversy also extends to the computer systems used to manage voter records. The activists questioned whether centralised technology operations could interfere with the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers to add, remove or correct entries. They sought information about who could access and alter the database and what safeguards governed those changes.
The Commission’s affidavit describes a high-level committee established on October 14 to examine whether its ECINet system complies with applicable legal requirements. The panel includes senior election officials, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent specialists associated with IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Changes to the online version of Form 6, used for new voter registration, formed another part of the criticism. The activists alleged that an additional declaration was introduced without proper authorisation. The Commission has maintained that the statutory form itself was not amended, while acknowledging issues concerning the online implementation that required correction.
The activists additionally questioned approximately 16 lakh appeals challenging voter inclusion in West Bengal. They sought to establish who instructed officials in the state Chief Electoral Officer’s office to submit the appeals, whether the Commission had approved them and whether automated systems played any role in generating the filings.
At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant gave petitioners time to respond to the Commission’s affidavit. The judges declined to issue a separate direction requiring preservation of internal files and communications but indicated that the court would examine the material. The matter was tentatively listed for November 17.
The proceedings also involve allegations concerning the treatment of voters removed from electoral rolls and asked to apply afresh using Form 6. Petitioners have argued that its declaration can create difficulties for people who were previously registered. The legality of disputed verification practices remains before the court.
Bhushan and his fellow activists called for disclosure of the relevant approval records, correspondence and instructions, alongside scrutiny of the officials responsible for contested administrative actions. Their demand for criminal prosecution has not itself resulted in any judicial finding of wrongdoing.
