ECI tells Supreme Court all 3 SIR orders were unanimous, denies CEC acted alone

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has denied allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, telling the Supreme Court that all three orders related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the three-member poll body.In an affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning and changes to SIR-related forms, the ECI said the allegations were based entirely on a single news report. It maintained that the CEC and both Election Commissioners had unanimously approved the affidavit.The poll body also clarified that suggestions, observations or queries raised by the CEC or Election Commissioners during internal discussions do not amount to decisions of the Commission.ECI SAYS ALL THREE SIR ORDERS WERE UNANIMOUSThe ECI said the three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions of the Commission. Explaining its decision-making process, the poll body said files are generally examined first by one Election Commissioner, then the other, before being placed before the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals are obtained electronically and recorded on the file subsequently.The affidavit stressed that observations or queries raised by any of the three members while a file is being processed cannot be treated as a formal decision under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The Commission also said it had neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.ECI CLARIFIES POSITION ON FORM 6On the controversy surrounding changes to Form 6, used for voter registration, the ECI told the court that the form itself had not been amended. It said only the Centre had the authority to amend the prescribed form, while the declaration required for the SIR process was a separate document.However, the Commission acknowledged that the online presentation of the application could be interpreted as an amendment. It said that from October 21, the online application would be split into Form 6 and the separate declaration, in line with the physical application format.The ECI also said that voters whose details could not be mapped during the revision would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings. Booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect the necessary documents from their homes, with hearings reserved for exceptional cases and preferably conducted online.ECINet SAFEGUARDS AND GOA VOTER DISCREPANCIESAddressing concerns over the ECINet system, the Commission said no voter’s name could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).It added that a committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been set up to examine compliance with the prescribed safeguards.On the controversy over 97 voters in Goa who were initially described as having been left out of the electoral rolls, the ECI said 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.ECI EXPLAINS WORK ALLOCATION ORDERThe affidavit also addressed a July 28 work allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation to the Commission. The ECI said both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day and that the order was never implemented after a joint direction issued by the two commissioners on July 30.On appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the Commission said these had been filed by officers of the state Chief Electoral Officer’s office in compliance with Supreme Court directions. It added that the matters had not been brought before the Commission.The ECI further maintained that any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers would face action.ECI OPPOSES PLEA TO RESTRAIN CECThe Commission argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC from discharging his functions was not maintainable. It said the CEC could be removed only through the process applicable to a Supreme Court judge.It also referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions rejecting repeated challenges to electronic voting machines (EVMs).The ECI said it had filed a brief response because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, point-by-point reply to the petitions.- Ends