Election Commission Files Key Affidavit in Supreme Court Over SIR Process
_1176365496.jpg)
In an exhaustive counter-affidavit submitted before the Supreme Court of India, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, affirming that all executive orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were finalized with the unanimous consent of the full three-member Commission. Responding directly to legal challenges spearheaded by petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh alongside interconnected pleas from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders, the poll panel clarified that statutory voter registration procedures under Form 6 remain entirely unamended, with the verification declaration functioning solely as an independent procedural document. Seeking the complete dismissal of petitions demanding the removal or suspension of the CEC, the Commission emphasized that internal deliberative notes do not constitute official administrative orders, reiterating that all institutional decisions strictly adhered to statutory mandates.
Unanimous Commission Approvals: Section 18 Compliance and the File Movement Protocol
The affidavit, formally submitted through Deputy Election Commissioner Prakash Yeturu, outlined the internal deliberative workflow that governs the Commission’s formal decisions:
Unanimous Issuance of SIR Orders: The poll watchdog placed on record that foundational policy notifications governing the SIR—specifically orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026—were issued with complete institutional consensus and received unanimous approval from the Chief Election Commissioner and both Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Statutory Compliance Under 2023 Act: Citing Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the Commission underscored that statutory provisions direct decisions to be taken by consensus wherever feasible, with majority rule serving as the legal mechanism if differences arise.
Deliberative Notes vs. Final Orders: Dismissing media narratives claiming deep internal rift, the Commission explained standard file navigation: files routinely circulate from the first Election Commissioner to the second, and finally to the CEC. Interim queries, reservations, dissenting observations, or marginal notations recorded during file reviews represent regular administrative deliberation rather than final Commission decrees.
Form 6 Integrity Maintained: Independent Declaration Form and Online System Separation
Addressing the core dispute regarding alleged procedural modifications to voter registration documentation, the Commission established a clear distinction between statutory rules and auxiliary verifications:
Exclusive Power of the Central Government: The affidavit highlighted that statutory amendments to prescribed forms under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, fall strictly within the legislative authority of the Central Government, confirming that the ECI introduced no changes to Form 6.
Role of the SIR Declaration: The Commission explained that the declaration form requested during the intensive revision drive is a completely separate document designed to match applicant credentials with historical voter archives and eliminate bogus or duplicate entries.
System UI Separation Implemented on October 21: Acknowledging that integrated digital displays during online submissions may have caused public confusion regarding Form 6 modifications, the ECI updated its portal interface starting October 21, 2026, to present Form 6 and the SIR declaration on distinct, independent screens.
Doorstep Verification Over In-Person Hearings: Reassuring eligible citizens, the Commission stated that voters whose names do not align seamlessly with legacy records are not routinely required to attend physical hearings; instead, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) conduct doorstep visits to collect verification records and upload them directly onto the ECINET portal.
Strict Statutory Safeguards and Tech Audits: Inclusions and exclusions on electoral rolls remain contingent upon mandatory speaking orders issued by competent Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), while technical review panels featuring specialists from IIT Madras and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, have been instituted to evaluate ECINET operations.
Constitutional Protections Under Article 324(5): Rebutting Media-Driven Removal Pleas
Addressing prayers demanding the removal or interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the poll panel invoked high constitutional benchmarks governing statutory offices:
Constitutional Removal Benchmark: The Commission cited Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India, noting that a sitting Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed from office through parliamentary impeachment analogous to the removal of a Supreme Court judge, insulating the constitutional authority from arbitrary executive or judicial suspension.
Rejection of Unverified Media Reports: Labeling the petitions speculative, the ECI pointed out that allegations concerning 14 disputed decisions were derived entirely from unverified reports in an English daily.
Zero Authorization for Leakage: The poll body affirmed that no internal office notes or classified records were officially disclosed or authorized for public circulation, requesting the Supreme Court to reject the challenges outright on grounds of maintainability and lack of independent evidentiary support.
_1516367944_351x234.jpg)
_1505708248_351x234.jpg)
_1036352640_351x234.jpg)
_1297355165_351x234.jpg)
_1194236318_351x234.jpg)