New Delhi: The Election Commission of India on Monday told the Supreme Court that all three orders for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimous decisions of the full Commission, pushing back firmly against claims that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted on his own.
The counter-affidavit, filed a day before the batch of petitions was expected to be heard on Tuesday, October 27, answers the petitioners’ charge of a progressive centralisation of power inside the Commission. The Commission said the petitions rest on a single newspaper report, which cannot be treated as evidence in law.
At the heart of the affidavit is a simple defence: this is a three-member body, and its big decisions were taken together. The counter-affidavit itself was approved unanimously by Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Commission said.
Three orders, one unanimous stand
The Commission named the three SIR orders at issue: June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026. All three, it said, were issued in line with decisions arrived at unanimously and in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The affidavit was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu in response to a writ petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh. The Commission argued that the plea is not maintainable, because a CEC can be removed only through the same process as a Supreme Court judge.
How a file moves inside the Commission
The affidavit laid out the usual route for a file: from one Election Commissioner to the other, then to the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals may be taken electronically and recorded afterwards, and action would follow against any officer who exceeds delegated powers.
The Commission also addressed a specific controversy over a work-allocation order dated July 28. That order, it said, was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the next day, and following a joint direction by the two Commissioners on July 30, the order was never implemented.
Form 6 has not changed, says the poll body
One key clarification concerns Form 6, used for voter registration. The Commission said Form 6 has not been amended during the SIR exercise, and that only the Centre can amend it. The SIR declaration collected from voters, it said, is a separate document.
It did accept that the online display could give the impression Form 6 had changed. From October 21, online applications were split into Form 6 and a separate declaration, matching the paper process.
What happens to voters whose records do not match
The affidavit also addressed voters whose names cannot be linked to older records. Such voters, it said, will not automatically be called for hearings. Instead, Booth Level Officers will visit their homes to collect documents, with hearings held only in special circumstances and online wherever feasible.
No name can be added to or removed from the roll without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer, the Commission said. Experts from the IITs and the Indian Institute of Science will examine compliance on the ECINet system.
The Commission also answered specific cases raised in public debate. In Goa, of 97 voters described as left out, it said 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.
Why the Commission says the plea should fail
Beyond the facts, the affidavit makes a legal argument about the Commission’s structure. Three members are appointed so that, in case of a difference of opinion, a majority can decide under Section 18 of the 2023 Act. On that basis, a prayer to restrain the CEC is not maintainable, it said.
The Commission also noted that repeated challenges to electronic voting machines have already been rejected by the Supreme Court, and sought more time to file a detailed response later, citing the Dussehra vacation.
The political backdrop is hard to miss. The Opposition has kept up its campaign against the SIR, with a rally planned for November 1, and Monday’s affidavit is the Commission’s most detailed public defence so far.
FAQs
What did the Election Commission tell the Supreme Court on October 26?
It said all three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions of the full three-member Commission.
Has Form 6 been changed during the SIR?
No, according to the Commission. It said only the Centre can amend Form 6, and the SIR declaration is a separate document. Online applications were split into Form 6 and the declaration from October 21 to avoid confusion.
Will voters with unmatched records have to attend hearings?
Not automatically. The Commission said Booth Level Officers will visit their homes to collect documents, and hearings will be held only in special circumstances, preferably online.
Can the CEC be restrained from functioning by a court plea?
The Commission argued no. It said a CEC can be removed only through the same process as a Supreme Court judge, and a plea to restrain him is not maintainable.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court was expected to hear the batch of petitions on Tuesday, October 27. The Commission has also sought time to file a more detailed response later.
This story will be updated as the proceedings unfold.
