‘All Three SIR Orders Were Unanimous’: EC Tells Supreme Court In Affidavit On Plea Against CEC

The EC argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable, saying that the CEC could be removed only through a process similar to that applicable to a SC judge.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to a plea challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, arguing that the petition is based entirely on a single news report.

The poll body said the affidavit had been unanimously approved by all three members of the Commission — the CEC and the two Election Commissioners. It maintained that all three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were unanimous decisions.

The EC also clarified that notes, queries or suggestions made by the CEC or Election Commissioners while a file is being processed should not be treated as decisions of the Commission. According to the affidavit, files are examined by one Election Commissioner, then the other, before being placed before the CEC. In urgent cases, approval is obtained electronically and recorded on the file subsequently.

The Commission warned that any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers would face action.

On the issue of Form 6 and the SIR declaration, the EC said Form 6 had not been amended and could only be amended by the Centre. It maintained that the SIR declaration was a separate document.

However, the Commission acknowledged that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment to Form 6. It said that, from October 21, the online application process would be split into Form 6 and the declaration, bringing it in line with the physical form.

The EC said voters who could not be mapped during the SIR process would not necessarily have to attend hearings in person. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would collect documents from their homes, while hearings would be held only in exceptional cases and, preferably, online, it added.

On ECINet, the Commission 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 committee comprising experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) had been constituted to examine compliance.

EC Gives Goa Voter Data

Citing the situation in Goa, the Commission said that of the 97 voters described as having been “left out", 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.

On appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the EC said the cases had been filed by officers from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, in compliance with Supreme Court orders. “These matters were not brought to the Commission," it said.

EC Says Plea Against CEC Is Not Maintainable

The Commission argued that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable, stating that the CEC could be removed only through a process similar to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

It also said the Commission had neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media. The affidavit further pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously rejected repeated challenges to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

The EC said it had filed a short reply because of the Dussehra vacation and sought the court’s permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise response.