‘All SIR Orders Unanimous, Form 6 Unchanged’: EC Tells Supreme Court Amid Plea Against CEC

EC Defends CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Supreme Court, Says All SIR Orders Were Unanimous

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before the Supreme Court, filing a counter-affidavit that questions the basis of a petition challenging his functioning. The Commission argued that the plea relies entirely on a single media report and maintained that its key decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously.

According to the affidavit, all three members of the Commission — the CEC and the two Election Commissioners — unanimously approved the response filed before the court. The poll body also asserted that the three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions.

The submission comes amid opposition demands for Kumar’s removal following an Indian Express report alleging differences within the Commission over the voter-roll revision exercise.

EC EXPLAINS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
The Commission clarified that observations, queries or suggestions recorded by individual Election Commissioners during file processing should not be interpreted as final decisions of the institution.

It explained that files are ordinarily examined by one Election Commissioner, followed by the other, before being placed before the CEC. In urgent situations, approvals may be obtained electronically, with the formal record completed later.

The affidavit also warned that officials issuing orders beyond their delegated authority could face disciplinary action.

On the controversy surrounding Form 6 and the SIR declaration, the EC maintained that Form 6 had not been amended, adding that any amendment to the prescribed form could only be made by the Centre. It described the SIR declaration as a separate document.

However, the Commission acknowledged that the way the application appeared online could create the impression that Form 6 had been modified. It said the online application process would be divided into two separate components — Form 6 and the declaration — from October 21, aligning the digital process with the physical form.

EC OUTLINES RELIEF FOR VOTERS DURING SIR
The Commission said voters whose records could not be mapped during the SIR exercise would not automatically be required to appear at hearings in person.

Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would collect the necessary documents from voters’ homes, while hearings would be conducted only in exceptional circumstances and, wherever possible, through online means.

The EC also rejected allegations concerning communications between Election Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary, describing them as misconceived.

Addressing concerns over the ECINet platform, the Commission said no voter could be added to or removed from electoral rolls without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). It added that a committee of experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been established to examine compliance-related issues.

EC SHARES GOA VOTER DATA, RESPONDS TO BENGAL APPEALS
Citing Goa as an example, the Commission said that among 97 voters reportedly described as having been left out, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.

On appeals concerning the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the EC stated that officials from the office of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer had filed the cases in compliance with Supreme Court directions. The Commission maintained that these matters had not been brought before it.

EC QUESTIONS MAINTAINABILITY OF PLEA AGAINST CEC
The poll body argued that the petition seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable. It pointed out that the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner is governed by a process comparable to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

The Commission further denied releasing or authorising the release of any internal notes or files to the media. It also referred to previous Supreme Court decisions rejecting repeated challenges to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Explaining the timing of its response, the EC said it had submitted a brief affidavit because of the Dussehra vacation and requested permission to file a detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph reply.

The Supreme Court will consider the matter in light of the submissions made by the parties. The Commission’s affidavit represents its position in response to the challenge against the CEC.