The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that all three major decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the Commission. Responding to allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar exercised collective powers without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, the ECI has denied any unilateral decision-making.
In its counter-affidavit, the Commission challenged the maintainability of the petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, arguing that it relies primarily on a newspaper report rather than independently established facts.
Background
The petition alleges that several decisions concerning electoral-roll revision were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It refers to 14 objections allegedly recorded between October 28, 2025, and August 14, 2026.
The petitioner has sought a writ of quo warranto, asking the CEC to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised powers vested collectively in the Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.
The plea also questions the legality of decisions relating to the SIR exercise and seeks to declare the resulting actions invalid if they were taken without following the prescribed decision-making procedure.
The Supreme Court had issued notice on the petition on October 5, declining to grant an interim order suspending the CEC.
ECI's Stand on Decision-Making
The ECI maintained that its decisions complied with Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under this provision, the Commission seeks unanimity, with decisions taken by majority where agreement cannot be reached.
Explaining its internal procedure, the Commission stated that files ordinarily pass through both Election Commissioners before reaching the CEC. It argued that observations, suggestions or queries recorded during this process do not, by themselves, amount to formal decisions of the Commission.
The affidavit stated:
"In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates. The Commission has neither released nor authorized the release of any internal note / file to any news agency."
The ECI further stated that its response had been approved unanimously by all three members. It specifically maintained that the SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were issued following unanimous decisions.
Dispute Over Form 6
The Commission also denied amending Form 6 through its SIR orders. Form 6 is used by individuals seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time.
According to the ECI, only the Central Government can amend the prescribed form under the applicable electoral rules. It maintained that the additional declaration seeking details connecting applicants or their relatives with earlier electoral rolls was a separate document.
However, the Commission acknowledged that displaying the declaration alongside Form 6 on its online platform could create the impression that the form had been amended. It stated that the online application process would be divided into separate components for Form 6 and the SIR declaration, following a decision dated October 21, 2026.
Unmapped Voters and ECINet
Addressing concerns regarding voters whose details could not be matched with earlier electoral rolls, the ECI stated that Booth Level Officers would collect the required documents from their homes. Such voters would not ordinarily need to attend hearings at the Electoral Registration Officer's office, with hearings reserved for exceptional cases and preferably conducted online.
The Commission also clarified that names could not be added to, deleted from or modified in electoral rolls without an order from the competent Electoral Registration Officer. It further informed the Court that a committee had been constituted to examine ECINet's compliance with applicable legal requirements.
ECI's Position Before the Supreme Court
The Commission argued that the request to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC was not maintainable, relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which prescribes the removal procedure applicable to the CEC.
The affidavit described the allegations as misconceived and stated that the ECI had filed a preliminary response due to the intervening Dussehra vacation, while reserving its right to submit a detailed reply.
The Supreme Court proceedings remain pending, and the ECI has denied the allegations of unilateral decision-making.
The Court has yet to determine the merits of the petition.
