The Election Commission of India (ECI) has formally responded to a petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, asserting in a counter-affidavit filed with the Supreme Court that all recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders were unanimous decisions. The poll body maintained that these orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026, were approved by all three members of the Commission, including the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.
The Commission’s response comes in the wake of mounting pressure and demands from opposition parties for the resignation or removal of the CEC. These calls followed media reports alleging internal discord within the election body regarding the management of the SIR process. In its affidavit, the ECI contended that the legal challenge against the CEC was not maintainable, citing that the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner can only occur through a process analogous to the removal of a Supreme Court judge.
Regarding the internal workflows of the ECI, the Commission clarified that queries, suggestions, or notes made by Commissioners during file processing should not be misconstrued as final decisions. The standard operating procedure, according to the affidavit, involves files being examined sequentially by one Election Commissioner and then the other before reaching the CEC. In instances requiring urgent action, the Commission noted that approvals are obtained electronically and documented on the file at a later stage.
The poll body also addressed concerns surrounding Form 6 and the SIR declaration. The ECI clarified that Form 6 has not been amended, stating that such an amendment lies within the jurisdiction of the Central government. While acknowledging that the online display of the application process may have caused confusion, the Commission stated that from October 21, the digital interface was split to align with physical forms. It further assured that Booth Level Officers would prioritize collecting documents from voters' homes to minimize the need for in-person hearings.
On the matter of voter data and registration, the Commission addressed specific claims, including the status of voters in Goa. The ECI reported that of the 97 individuals previously noted as "left out," 88 have since been enrolled, with the remaining individuals identified as foreign passport holders or citizens residing abroad. Regarding allegations of improper inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the Commission maintained that these actions were initiated by the local office of the Chief Electoral Officer in compliance with earlier Supreme Court directives, rather than by the Commission itself.
The ECI further emphasized its internal security, stating that it has neither authorized nor released any internal notes or files to the media. To bolster transparency, the Commission has constituted a committee of experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) to verify compliance on the ECINet platform. The affidavit also noted that no voter can be added or deleted from electoral rolls without a formal order from an Electoral Registration Officer.
As the case progresses, the Commission has sought the court's permission to submit a more detailed, paragraph-wise response, noting that the current filing was limited in scope due to the Dussehra vacation. The ECI concluded its submission by reiterating that it adheres strictly to its delegated powers and that any officer found acting beyond their authority would be subject to disciplinary action.
Comments