The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its decision-making process and rejecting allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners.
The Commission said the petition challenging the CEC’s functioning was built entirely on a single news report. It maintained that the three orders relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were approved unanimously by the Commission.
The affidavit was approved by all three members — Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — the ECI said. It added that notes, queries or suggestions made by individual commissioners while files are being processed do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission.
According to the ECI, files are ordinarily circulated first to one Election Commissioner, then the other, and finally the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals may be obtained electronically and formally recorded on file later. The Commission also said officers issuing orders beyond their delegated powers could face action.
The Commission maintained that Form 6, used to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, had not been amended. It said only the Centre can amend the prescribed form and that the declaration introduced for the SIR exercise is a separate document.
However, the ECI acknowledged that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment. It said that from October 21, the online application process would display Form 6 and the SIR declaration separately, in line with the physical forms.
The Commission also said voters whose details could not be mapped during the SIR would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings. Booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect documents from their homes, with hearings reserved for exceptional cases and preferably conducted online.
On the ECINet platform, the ECI said names cannot be added to or deleted from electoral rolls without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). It added that a committee involving experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science had been formed to examine compliance.
The affidavit addressed a July 28 work-allocation order, stating that it was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both Election Commissioners reportedly wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day. The ECI said the order was not implemented after a joint direction by the two commissioners on July 30.
On West Bengal, the Commission said appeals against the inclusion of voters had been filed by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer’s office in compliance with Supreme Court orders, but the matters had not been brought before the Commission.
Regarding Goa, the ECI said that of 97 voters described as having been left out, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.
The Commission also denied releasing or authorising the release of internal notes or files to the media. It reiterated that the CEC can be removed only through the constitutionally prescribed process applicable to a Supreme Court judge and argued that the petition seeking to restrain him from functioning was not maintainable.
The ECI said it had filed a short response because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise reply.
The affidavit forms part of the legal proceedings concerning allegations that the CEC made decisions without the participation required of a multi-member Election Commission. The petitioners have questioned the process followed in SIR-related decisions and the changes made to the online voter-registration process.
The Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the allegations. It has said it will examine the relevant records and whether the Commission’s decisions complied with the law.