‘All 3 SIR orders unanimous,’ EC tells SC, denies unilateral decision-making by CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that all three orders related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by the three-member poll body and denied allegations of unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The ECI said in an affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning and changes to SIR-related forms that the allegations were based entirely on a single news report.

It maintained that the CEC and both Election Commissioners had unanimously approved the affidavit.

The poll body also clarified that suggestions, observations or queries raised by the CEC or Election Commissioners during internal discussions do not amount to decisions of the Commission.

‘All three SIR orders were unanimous’

The ECI said the three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions of the Commission.

The poll body explained its decision-making process, saying files are generally examined first by one election commissioner, then the other, before being placed before the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals are obtained electronically and recorded on the file subsequently.

It stressed that observations or queries raised by any of the three members while a file is being processed cannot be treated as a formal decision under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

The ECI also said that it had neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.

‘Only Centre can amend prescribed form,’ ECI clarifies on Form 6

On the controversy over changes to Form 6 used for voter registration, the ECI told the top court that the form itself had not been amended. It said only the Centre had the authority to amend the prescribed form, while the declaration required for the SIR process was a separate document.

However, the Commission acknowledged that the online presentation of the application could be interpreted as an amendment. It said that the online application would be split into Form 6 and the separate declaration, in line with the physical application format.

The ECI also said that voters whose details could not be mapped during the revision would not ordinarily be required to attend hearings. Booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect the necessary documents from their homes, with hearings reserved for exceptional cases and preferably conducted online.

‘Voter’s name cannot be added or deleted without ERO’s order’

Referring to questions over the ECINet system, the ECI said 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 panel of experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been set up to examine compliance with the prescribed safeguards.

On the controversy over 97 voters in Goa being reportedly left out of the electoral rolls, the ECI said 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.

Explains July 28 work allocation order

The affidavit also addressed a July 28 work allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation to the Commission. The ECI said both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day and that the order was never implemented after a joint direction was issued by the two commissioners on July 30.

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

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

Opposes plea seeking to restrain CEC from discharging functions

The ECI argued 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 Supreme Court judge.

It also referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions rejecting repeated challenges to electronic voting machines (EVMs).

The ECI said it had filed a brief response because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, point-by-point reply to the petitions.