The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before the Supreme Court, asserting that all three orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were approved unanimously by the Commission’s three members. The poll body has also questioned the maintainability of a petition challenging the functioning of the CEC, arguing that it rests entirely on a single media report.
In its counter-affidavit, the Election Commission said the SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions approved by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners. The clarification comes amid mounting opposition criticism following a report by The Indian Express that raised questions about alleged internal differences within the poll panel over the revision exercise.
The controversy has fuelled demands from opposition parties for action against Kumar, including calls for his removal. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that the petition challenging his functioning is not legally sustainable.
The Commission said its affidavit had been unanimously approved by all three members. It also sought permission from the Supreme Court to file a more detailed, paragraph-wise response, explaining that the present submission was a short reply filed during the Dussehra vacation.
Election Commission explains how decisions are taken
Addressing reports about alleged differences within the Commission, the ECI clarified that observations, queries or suggestions made by individual members while examining a file should not automatically be construed as decisions of the Commission.
According to the affidavit, files are examined sequentially by one Election Commissioner and then the other before being placed before the Chief Election Commissioner. In urgent cases, approvals may be obtained electronically, with the relevant details subsequently recorded on the file.
The Commission also warned that any officer issuing orders beyond the scope of their delegated powers would face action.
By setting out its internal decision-making procedure, the poll body sought to distinguish routine administrative discussions from formal decisions taken by the institution as a whole.
Form 6 Row: EC says application form has not been amended
The Commission also addressed the controversy surrounding Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll, and the declaration required during the SIR exercise.
The ECI maintained that Form 6 had not been amended by the poll body and that any amendment to the prescribed form fell within the Centre’s authority. It clarified that the SIR declaration was a separate document.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the way the documents were displayed online could create the impression that Form 6 had been modified. To address the confusion, it said the online application process would be divided into two separate components, Form 6 and the SIR declaration, from October 21, aligning the digital process with the physical forms.
EC says voters will not necessarily have to attend SIR hearings in person
On voters who could not be mapped during the SIR exercise, the Commission said they would not automatically be required to appear for hearings in person.
According to the affidavit, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would collect the necessary documents from voters at their homes. Hearings would be conducted only in exceptional circumstances and, wherever possible, through online means.
The clarification addresses concerns surrounding the verification process and the requirement for voters to establish their eligibility during the revision of electoral rolls.
The ECI also addressed questions about ECINet, stating that no voter could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll without an order issued by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
It further said that a committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been constituted to examine compliance-related issues.
EC provides clarification on 97 voters in Goa
Responding to questions about voters reportedly left out of the electoral rolls in Goa, the Commission provided details concerning 97 individuals whose cases had attracted attention.
According to the ECI, 88 of these voters had already been enrolled, six were residing abroad and three held Portuguese passports.
The figures were cited by the Commission in response to concerns about exclusions during the revision exercise. The affidavit’s account presents the poll body’s position on the status of the individuals in question.
On appeals challenging the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the Commission said the cases had been filed by officials from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, in compliance with Supreme Court directions.
The ECI maintained that these matters had not been brought before the Commission itself.
EC says CEC can be removed only through prescribed constitutional process
In its response to the petition seeking to restrain Kumar, the Election Commission argued that the plea was not maintainable. It pointed out that the Chief Election Commissioner enjoys statutory protection against removal, with the process governed by provisions similar to those applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court.
The Commission also denied releasing or authorising the release of any internal note or file to the media, addressing the reports that had triggered the latest controversy.
Additionally, the affidavit referred to previous Supreme Court proceedings in which repeated challenges to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) had been rejected.
The latest submission comes amid an intensifying political dispute over the SIR exercise and demands from opposition parties for action against the CEC. The Commission has sought an opportunity to file a comprehensive response before the Supreme Court considers the challenge.
The central issue before the court is whether the petition challenging the CEC’s functioning can be maintained and how the allegations concerning the Commission’s internal decision-making should be examined in light of the poll body’s response.
