ECI rejects unilateral action charge against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, tells Supreme Court all three SIR orders were unanimous

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday rejected the charge that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on his own, telling the Supreme Court that all three SIR orders were unanimous and that the plea against him is built entirely on a single news report.

In a counter affidavit, the poll body defended its functioning and the conduct of the SIR. It rejected allegations of irregularities and questioned the basis of the petition challenging its decision-making process. A newspaper report is not treated as evidence in the eyes of law, the Commission said in the affidavit.

Also read: ECI's summary revision signals a shift from exclusion to inclusion


The affidavit was approved unanimously by Kumar and Election Commissioners (ECs) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It responds to concerns over the Commission's internal decision-making, alleged changes to voter enrolment forms, deletion of names and the functioning of its electoral databases.

The Commission said the SIR orders of June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were each unanimous decisions. It said notes, queries or suggestions by the CEC or the ECs while a file moves are not decisions of the Commission.

According to the affidavit, a file goes to one EC, then the other EC and then the CEC. In urgent cases, approval is taken electronically and recorded on the file later. Any officer who issues orders beyond delegated powers will face action, it said.

On the July 28 work allocation order, the Commission said it was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both ECs wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the next day. The order was never implemented after the ECs' joint direction of July 30, the affidavit says.

Form 6 and hearings

The Commission said Form 6 has not been amended and that only the Centre can amend it. The SIR declaration is a separate document, it said.

It admitted that the online display could be read as an amendment. The online application will be split into Form 6 and the declaration from October 21, as in the physical form, the affidavit says.

Voters who are not mapped need not attend hearings, the Commission said. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will collect documents from their homes. Hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online.

On ECINet, it said no name is added or deleted except by order of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). A committee with experts from IIT and IISc has been set up to check compliance.

In Goa, of 97 voters described as "left out", 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports, the Commission said.

It said appeals in West Bengal against the inclusion of voters were filed by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, under Supreme Court orders. "These matters were not brought to the Commission," the affidavit says.

The Commission argued that a plea to restrain the CEC is not maintainable, as the CEC can be removed only in the way a Supreme Court judge is removed. It said it never released, or authorised the release of, any internal note or file to the media. It also said repeated challenges to EVMs have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Also read: Trade secrets': What powers SIR's voter-roll checks? EC declines to reveal software details

The plea against Kumar, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, alleges that the Commission's powers as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without the collective decision-making the law requires. It seeks his suspension and prosecution over SIR decisions allegedly taken unilaterally.

On October 5, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission and others on the pleas. It did not grant interim relief at that stage.

Separately, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders have challenged the SIR in the Supreme Court. According to the TOI report, they have sought disclosure of official records, an independent audit of voter deletions, booth-wise lists of deleted electors and safeguards against removal of eligible voters without notice or a hearing.

(With inputs from TOI and ANI)