Bihar SIR Was A Unanimous Decision; Consequently Upheld By Supreme Court: Election Commission Of India

The Election Commission of India has clarified that the order for SIR in Bihar issued on 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission.

This order was later upheld by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, wherein it said SIR was not in conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules.

ECI has further cited its press note dated 26 September 2026, where in Point 1(iii), ECI has stated that, "The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

The Commission has issued this clarification while responding to a claim made by Indian National Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi who alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar "changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally".

"This is just one more proof of him abusing his position to help the BJP. He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable," Gandhi further alleged in an X post made today.

In May this year, the Supreme Court had held the object sought to be achieved by the SIR bore a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. "Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They fundamentally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and credibility of the electoral rolls, which form the foundation of the democratic process," the CJI Surya Kant led bench had held.

On the reasons given by the ECI to conduct the SIR, namely the passage of more than four decades since the last intensive revision, large-scale additions and deletions over the years, rapid urbanisation, migration and the resulting possibility of repetition and inaccuracies in the electoral rolls, court had observed that these were clearly directed towards preserving that foundational integrity.

"SIR meets the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion. We hold that the impugned exercise was founded upon a legitimate and constitutionally grounded purpose, namely the restoration of accuracy, completeness and integrity of the electoral rolls," the judgment noted.

Notably in para 152 of the judgement, Supreme Court had further stated:

"It is true that Form 6, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, sets out a framework of documentation; however, the same is tailored to the process of revision contemplated under Section 21(2) of the RP Act and may not, in all situations, be capable of literal application to an exercise of the present nature. The Commission, therefore, retains a degree of residual authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a Special Intensive Revision."

The Supreme Court is presently seized of petitions against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar alleging that he took decisions unilaterally in the name of the Election Commission of India.

Allegedly one of those decisions involve a substantive change made in July 2026 to the statutory Form 6 despite an file warning by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi, concurred in by Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, that such a change could not lawfully be made without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.