New Delhi: The Supreme Magistrate on Tuesday, while hearing the petitions taxing suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, gave time to the petitioners to present their side on the counter testimony of the Election Commission within 10 days. These petitions relate to so-called irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists and allegations of 'vote theft'. A three-member seat of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana postponed the hearing of the specimen and stock-still November 17 as the next date. The magistrate moreover issued notice to the Election Commission on all related applications, including the petitions by Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of the INDIA alliance.
What did the Election Commission say in the affidavit?
A day surpassing the hearing, the Election Commission had filed a 248-page counter testimony in the Supreme Magistrate defending the SIR process. The Commission termed the allegations made in the petitions as based on misunderstanding and demanded that they be dismissed. According to the Commission, the orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 related to SIR were issued with the unanimous consent of all three members of the Commission.
Did the Commission deny the allegations of changes in Form-6?
The Election Commission moreover rejected the allegations of making changes in Form-6 used for registering names in the voter list. The testimony said the decisions related to SIR were taken in vibrations with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 Act relating to the appointment, conditions of service and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. The Commission argued that any comment, suggestion or question of any Commissioner in the process cannot be considered as the final visualization of the Commission.
How did the Commission explain the visualization making process?
According to the affidavit, the files first go to an Election Commissioner, then to flipside Commissioner and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner. The tried decisions are signed by all three members. The Commission moreover said that if members are not personally misogynist at the time of any urgent order, clearance can be taken through electronic ways and later recorded in the file. The Commission says that differences of opinion or questions welling during the consideration of a file are not in itself proof of disagreement in the final decision.
What did Rahul Gandhi and opposition leaders demand?
The petitions were filed pursuit a media report which personal there were differences of opinion among the Election Commission members over the SIR. Based on this report, Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of INDIA syndication approached the Supreme Magistrate and demanded the suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner. The magistrate had older moreover sought a reply from the Election Commission in this matter.
Now the petitioners have got 10 days to file their reply to the Commission's affidavit. The next hearing of the specimen is expected to be held on November 17. During that time, remoter whoopee will be decided on the understructure of the arguments of both the parties and the misogynist documents.
