ECI denies Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally:Says all 3 SIR orders were unanimously approved by the Commission

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to a petition challenging Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning. The affidavit argued that the plea is based entirely on a single news report. In its affidavit, the commission defended its decision-making process, the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the procedures followed for handling voter applications. It also opposed the plea seeking restrictions on the CEC, saying such a request was not legally maintainable. The ECI said the affidavit had been unanimously approved by all three members of the commission — the CEC and both Election Commissioners (ECs). What the ECI said in its affidavit Affidavit approved unanimously: The affidavit was approved unanimously by all three members of the Election Commission — the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and both Election Commissioners (ECs). All three SIR orders were unanimous: The commission said its three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous decisions. Notes on files are not commission decisions: Notes, queries or suggestions made by the CEC or Election Commissioners while processing a file do not constitute decisions of the commission. File approval procedure: Files are sent first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC. In urgent cases, approval is obtained electronically and recorded on the file later. Action against officers exceeding their powers: Any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers will face action. July 28 work allocation order: The order was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day. The order was never implemented after the commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30. Form 6 has not been amended: The commission said Form 6 had not been amended and that only the Centre could amend it. The SIR declaration is a separate document. Online application format to be changed: The ECI acknowledged that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment to Form 6. From October 21, the online application will be divided into Form 6 and the declaration, in line with the physical form. Unmapped voters need not attend hearings: Booth-level officers (BLOs) will collect documents from the homes of unmapped voters. Hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online. ECINet and voter records: No name can be added to or deleted from the electoral roll through ECINet except by an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). A committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has been set up to check compliance. Goa’s 97 ‘left out’ voters: Of the 97 voters reported to have been left out, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports. West Bengal voter inclusion appeals: Appeals against the inclusion of voters were filed by officers from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, under Supreme Court orders. The commission said these matters were not brought before it. Plea against the CEC: The ECI said the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable. It added that the CEC could be removed only through the procedure applicable to the removal of a Supreme Court judge. No internal files released to the media: The commission said it had never released or authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media. EVM challenges: The ECI said repeated challenges to electronic voting machines (EVMs) had already been rejected by the Supreme Court. Detailed response sought: The commission said it had filed a brief reply because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph response.