ECI Files Affidavit In SC, Says Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Rests On Single Report

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Oct 26, filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing a plea challenging Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's functioning, stating that the petition is based entirely on a single news report. The Commission said the affidavit was unanimously approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

In its reply, the ECI maintained that all three orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous decisions of the Commission. It clarified that notes, queries or suggestions made by the CEC or Election Commissioners while files are being processed do not constitute decisions of the Commission.

Explaining its file-movement procedure, the ECI said files are first sent to one Election Commissioner, then to the other, and subsequently to the CEC. In urgent cases, approvals are obtained electronically and recorded on the file later. It added that action would be taken against any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers.

The Commission also addressed a July 28 work-allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. According to the affidavit, both Election Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the following day, and the order was not implemented after the Commissioners issued a joint direction on July 30.

On Form 6, used for applications to include names in electoral rolls, the ECI said the form had not been amended and that only the Centre could make such changes. It clarified that the declaration required under the SIR was a separate document. However, the Commission acknowledged that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment and said that, from October 21, the online application would be divided into Form 6 and the separate declaration, in line with the physical form.

The ECI further said unmapped voters would not be required to attend hearings routinely. Booth-level officers (BLOs) would collect documents from their homes, with hearings held only in exceptional cases and preferably online.

Regarding ECINet, the Commission stated 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 also said a committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been established to examine compliance.

On allegations concerning voters left out of the rolls in Goa, the ECI said that of the 97 cases cited, 88 people had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.

The Commission also addressed appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, stating that these had been filed by officers from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, in compliance with Supreme Court orders. It said these matters had not been brought before the Commission.

Opposing the plea seeking restrictions on the CEC, the ECI argued that such a request was not maintainable, adding that the CEC could be removed only through a process similar to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge. The Commission also denied releasing or authorising the release of any internal note or file to the media.

The affidavit further referred to previous Supreme Court rulings rejecting repeated challenges to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The ECI said it had filed a brief reply because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise response.