The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that all its decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously, rejecting allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted alone. The submission came in a counter-affidavit filed in response to a writ petition challenging the CEC's functioning, LiveLaw and IANS reported.
Source: LiveLaw
The affidavit, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, states that the three SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were unanimous decisions of the Commission, and that the affidavit itself was approved unanimously by the CEC and both Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, according to LiveLaw and LawBeat.
Source: LawBeat
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, rests on an Indian Express report alleging — as an allegation, not a proven fact — that 14 crucial SIR decisions were taken in the Commission's name despite objections recorded by the two Election Commissioners. The ECI said the plea was built entirely on a single newspaper report, that the petitioner had not verified the claims with the Commission, and that it had never authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media.
Explaining its process, the Commission said notes, queries, suggestions or observations recorded by the CEC or the Election Commissioners while a file moves through the chain do not by themselves constitute decisions. A file goes first to one Election Commissioner, then to the second, and finally to the CEC, and the decision is taken only after all views are considered, the affidavit states.
On Form 6, the Commission told the court that the form has not been amended. The declaration attached to it during the SIR was an annexure meant to help with voter mapping and to avoid repeated documentation cycles, it said, adding that no voter's name can be added or deleted without an order of the Electoral Registration Officer.
The ECI also argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC from functioning is not maintainable. Invoking Article 324(5) of the Constitution, it said the CEC can be removed from office only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court, and called the prayer for a writ of quo warranto misconceived, IANS reported.
Source: IANS via HiIndia
On one specific order cited in the petition, the affidavit said the July 28 order was issued by an Additional Secretary, both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the next day, and after a joint direction from both Commissioners on July 30, that order was not implemented, The World Opinion reported.
Source: The World Opinion
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice to the ECI, the CEC and other officials on the petition. The court will now consider the Commission's response along with the petitioner's claims; it has expressed no view on the merits at this stage.