The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had taken unilateral decisions, telling the Supreme Court that all three orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimously approved by the three-member poll panel.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the Commission said the petition challenging the CEC's functioning was based entirely on a single newspaper report. It maintained that the affidavit itself had been unanimously approved by Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The poll panel asserted that the SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were collective decisions taken in accordance with the Constitution and the law governing the Election Commission.
๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป-๐บ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐
The Commission explained that observations, queries or suggestions made by individual Election Commissioners during the examination of files did not automatically constitute decisions of the poll body.
According to the affidavit, files are ordinarily circulated first to one Election Commissioner, then to the second and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner. In urgent cases, approvals may be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded on the file.
The ECI maintained that decisions were taken after considering the views placed before the Commission, in accordance with Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
It also said that officers issuing orders beyond their delegated authority could face action.
๐ฃ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐
Questioning the basis of the petition, the Election Commission said allegations against the CEC had been drawn from a single newspaper report rather than independently established evidence.
It also denied releasing or authorising the release of internal notes or files to any news organisation.
The petition alleged that Kumar had exercised the collective powers of the Election Commission without obtaining the approval of the other two Commissioners.
It referred to objections reportedly recorded by Sandhu and Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning administrative decisions, electoral roll procedures and internal functioning.
The Commission rejected the allegations and argued that the request to restrain the CEC from functioning was not maintainable.
It cited constitutional provisions governing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, who can be removed only through the procedure applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ
The ECI also rejected allegations that it had amended Form 6, which is used by applicants seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
It maintained that only the Central government could amend the statutory form and clarified that the additional declaration introduced for the SIR exercise was a separate document.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the manner in which the declaration appeared in the online application process could create the impression that Form 6 had been amended.
It said a decision taken on October 21 provided for separating Form 6 and the SIR declaration in the online application process, bringing it in line with the physical forms.
๐๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐๐น๐ฒ๐
Addressing concerns over voters whose details could not be mapped during the SIR exercise, the Commission said such individuals would ordinarily not be required to appear for hearings before electoral registration authorities.
Instead, booth-level officers would collect the necessary documents from their residences. Hearings would be conducted only in exceptional circumstances, preferably through online arrangements.
The Commission also clarified that entries in the electoral roll could not be added, deleted or modified through the ECINet system without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer.
It informed the court that a committee, including independent technical experts, had been constituted to examine whether ECINet complied with the applicable legal framework.
๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ธ๐ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐น๐
On allegations concerning internal work allocation, the Commission said an order issued on July 28 had never been implemented following objections raised by the two Election Commissioners.
The ECI also addressed issues relating to electoral roll appeals in West Bengal and the status of certain voters in Goa.
The Commission informed the Supreme Court that it had submitted a brief response because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to file a detailed, paragraph-wise affidavit addressing the allegations.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions questioning whether the Commission's decisions were taken in accordance with the legal requirements governing its collective functioning. No final ruling has been delivered on the allegations.