EC Tells Supreme Court All 3 SIR Orders Were Unanimous, Denies Unilateral Decisions By CEC Gyanesh Kumar

New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took decisions unilaterally, informing the Supreme Court that all 3 orders pertaining to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimous decisions of the 3-member body.

In an affidavit submitted in response to petitions questioning the functioning of the CEC and modifications to SIR-linked forms, the poll panel asserted that the claims were founded solely on a single media report. It maintained that the affidavit had been unanimously approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

The Commission further clarified that suggestions, observations or queries raised by the CEC or Election Commissioners during internal deliberations do not constitute formal decisions of the Commission.

Commission Explains Files Move Through ECs Before CEC

Elaborating on the decision-making procedure, the EC emphasised that the 3 SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were taken unanimously. It explained that files are generally examined first by one Election Commissioner, then by the other, before being placed before the CEC for consideration. In cases requiring urgency, approvals are obtained through electronic means and are subsequently recorded on the file.

The affidavit emphasised that observations or queries raised by any of the 3 members while a file is under processing cannot be treated as a formal decision under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The Commission also stated that it had neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.

'Form 6 Not Amended, Only Presentation Changed'

Addressing the controversy surrounding changes to Form 6, which is used for voter registration, the ECI stated before the Apex Court that the form had not been amended. It submitted that only the Centre possesses the authority to amend the prescribed form, while the declaration required for the SIR exercise is a separate document.

However, the Commission acknowledged that the online presentation of the application could be construed as an amendment. It said that with effect from October 21, the online application would be bifurcated into Form 6 and the separate declaration, in conformity with the physical application format.

The ECI also submitted that voters whose details could not be mapped during the revision would not ordinarily be required to appear for hearings. The booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect the requisite documents from their residences, with hearings being reserved for exceptional circumstances and preferably conducted through online mode.

Form 6 Clubbed With Declaration For Single OTP Convenience

The Election Commission also told the Supreme Court that Form 6 has not been amended and the SIR declaration is a separate document that only the Centre can amend under the 1960 Rules.

It said the two were shown together online only to let voters finish the process with one OTP and e-signature. Admitting this could be seen as an amendment, the EC stated that it has now split them online from October 21, like the physical form.

The affidavit was filed on a plea by Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging Form 6 changes and questioning CEC Gyanesh Kumar's functioning.

Safeguards In ECINet And Clarification On Goa Voter Numbers

On concerns raised over the ECINet system, the Commission stressed that no voter’s name could be added to or deleted from the electoral roll without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). It added that a committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) has been constituted to examine compliance with the prescribed safeguards.

The ECI also clarified with regard to the controversy involving 97 voters in Goa who were initially termed as having been excluded from the electoral rolls, that 88 had already been enrolled, 6 were residing abroad and 3 held Portuguese passports.

Work Allocation Order Was Never Implemented, Says ECI

The affidavit also dealt with a July 28 work allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation to the Commission. The ECI stated that both Election Commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary the very next day and that the order was never implemented following a joint direction issued by the two commissioners on July 30.

On appeals against inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the Commission emphasised that these had been filed by officers of the state Chief Electoral Officer’s office in compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court. It added that the matters had not been brought before the Commission.

The ECI further maintained that any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers would face action.

Plea To Restrain CEC Not Maintainable

The Commission contended that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC from discharging his functions was not maintainable. It said the CEC could be removed only through the process applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court.

It also referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court rejecting repeated challenges to electronic voting machines. The ECI stressed that it had filed a brief response in view of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, point-by-point reply to the petitions in due course.