New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed its counter-affidavit in the Supreme Magistrate versus a petition challenging the work and style of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission clarified in the magistrate that the unshortened petition was filed based solely on a media report and has no legal basis.
The Commission said that this testimony has been tried and filed unanimously by the three Election Commissioners – Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi.
What else did the Election Commission write in the affidavit?
In the testimony filed in the Supreme Court, the Election Commission has given many important clarifications regarding its functioning and decisions. The Commission said that the three Special Intensive Review (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were passed unanimously by the three Commissioners.
The Commission clarified that notes, suggestions, or questions raised by the CEC or Election Commissioners during the disposal of a file cannot be considered the Commission's final decision. Files are first presented to one Election Commissioner, then to another, and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner. In emergency situations, electronic clearance is obtained and then recorded on the file.
The Commission issued a stern warning that if any officer has issued any order vastitude the powers delegated to him, strict legalistic whoopee will be taken versus him.
The Commission argues that the SIR is stuff conducted in vibrations with ramble and statutory provisions and that no illegal changes have been made to the procedures for inclusion of names in the voter list. The Election Commission has made 11 main arguments.
What the Commission said in the magistrate on Form 6 to SIR?
1. The Commission's position on the validity of the SIR: The Election Commission stated that the SIR orders were issued under Article 324 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, are resulting with the Commission's decisions. The Commission has sought to dismiss the petition, calling it based on misconceptions.
2. Regarding changes to Form 6: The Commission clarified that the three SIR orders have not unsimilar Form 6 for voter registration. According to the Commission, Form 6 is the prescribed form for registering new voters. The twin "Declaration Form" is a separate document introduced under the SIR process.
3. Argument regarding documents: The Commission stated that Form 6 and the declaration form serve variegated purposes for subtracting names to the voter list. The declaration form's purpose is to map the applicant's or their parents'/grandparents' details to the old SIR records. Previously misogynist information can be used to add details to the old records. If the details do not match or there is a discrepancy, the relevant Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) may issue a notice and verify the eligibility.
4. Process for Linking to Old Voter Records: According to the Commission, voters can perform mapping based on their own or their relatives' old SIR records. The declaration form format was revised in its orders dated October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, but the Commission claims that this did not significantly transpiration the vital eligibility requirements. The Commission stated that this wattle was made to simplify the process.
5. No Documents Will Be Placid During Enumeration: According to the Commission, no documents will be placid from voters during the enumeration phase. Voters who cannot be linked to old records will be notified without the typhoon voter list is published. The Commission stated that this gives voters an opportunity to prove their eligibility.
6. Declaration Form to be Provided Withal with Form 6: The Commission stated that the statutory Form 6 will remain workable for the registration of new voters. A separate declaration form will be required to be submitted withal with Form 6 during the SIR. The Commission moreover stated that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been instructed to make Form 6 misogynist for the registration of new voters.
7. Notice and Hearing for Deletion of Names: For voters whose enumeration forms are not returned, the BLO can gather information at the local level and record the probable cause. A booth-wise list of those excluded from the typhoon voter list will be displayed in the relevant local offices and made misogynist on the Chief Electoral Officer's website. The Commission stated that the relevant ERO can issue a notice and verify eligibility.
8. Security of the ECI-NET Portal: The Commission stated that a committee has been worked to strengthen the security and functionality of the ECI-NET portal. Suggestions have been sought from officials for improvements to the portal. According to the Commission, the ERO has the statutory validity to add, correct, or delete names from the voter list, and changes on the portal are made only on the understructure of authorized orders.
9. Request Mechanism: The Commission referred to the request mechanism in West Bengal for cases involving inclusion of names in the voter list. The testimony stated that, pursuit Supreme Magistrate directives, objections to inclusion or deletion of names can be raised surpassing the Appellate Tribunal. The Commission moreover cited Supreme Magistrate orders regarding the hearing and disposal of appeals.
10. SIR work nearing completion: According to the Commission, the SIR process had been completed in the states covered by the orders of June 24, 2025, and October 27, 2025. The process was moreover completed or in the final stages in the states covered by the order of May 14, 2026. The testimony states that final voter lists had been published in several states and one union territory.
11. Demand for Dismissal of Petition: The Commission has termed the petitioner's allegations as misleading and false. According to the Commission, the petition is primarily based on a news report, which the petitioner himself stated required investigation. The Commission stated that a news report cannot be considered vestige of facts in itself. Finally, the Commission has demanded the dismissal of the petition, calling it unconstitutional.
All decisions are taken by consensus
The Election Commission, in its reply testimony filed in the Supreme Magistrate on the petitions challenging the SIR process, has said that all decisions related to SIR were taken unanimously. The Election Commission said that the counter testimony has been unanimously tried by all three members of the Commission including the Chief Election Commissioner and both the Election Commissioners.
The Commission clarified that the comments, questions or suggestions made by the CEC or the Election Commissioners during the consideration of the file cannot be considered as the final visualization of the Commission. The Commission explained that the file first goes to one Election Commissioner, then to another, and then to the CEC. In urgent cases, clearance is obtained electronically and then recorded on the file. The ECI said that if any officer issues orders vastitude the powers delegated to him, whoopee will be taken versus him.
