Congress calls EC's Supreme Court affidavit on voter roll revision deceptive

Congress attacked the Election Commission's Supreme Court affidavit defending the electoral roll revision. The dispute raises questions over voter registration changes, internal approvals and ECINET's authority.

The Congress on Tuesday described the Election Commission's affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as "deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous", news agency Press Trust of India reported. Congress general secretary for communications Jairam Ramesh said the affidavit was "extremely damaging" to the poll body itself.

The Election Commission strongly defended the revision exercise before the Supreme Court, saying it was authorised by law and that the relevant orders had been approved unanimously by all three members of the poll body. It also rejected allegations that Form 6, used for voter registration, had been amended.

Taking a swipe at the Election Commission, Ramesh said: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. And when we have done it for a while, it comes out in a crooked style."

In a post on X, he said: "The EC's affidavit is deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous. It is also extremely damaging -- to itself."

Alleging an "illegal amendment" to Form 6, Ramesh accused the Election Commission of deception and wordplay. "First, it claimed that the new declaration attached to Form 6 was upheld by the Supreme Court, which the Court subsequently contradicted. Second, it now claims that the new declaration form is separate, and Form 6 was not amended. But this is a deception -- Form 6 could not be submitted online without filling this mandatory declaration," he said.

Ramesh claimed the poll body had changed its position. He said that on September 26, the Election Commission stated that the declaration was attached to Form 6, but now maintained that it was not part of the form. "The ECI cannot cover up its blatant violation of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960," he said.

Ramesh also alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken unilateral decisions. He said the Election Commission had "shifted the goalposts" by claiming that the main SIR orders had been formally approved by all three election commissioners.

"But the two ECs objected on record to grave violations and illegal actions taking place on the orders of the CEC -- their objections were disregarded. The ECs were not even informed and learnt of these decisions from the news. This is not unanimity but unilateral decision-making," Ramesh said.

The Congress leader also alleged that ECINET had illegally centralised control over electoral rolls and overridden electoral registration officers, who are the designated authorities under the law. He said the two election commissioners had placed their concerns on record.

"Evidence of EROs being overruled has come from nearly every SIR state: Goa, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to name a few," Ramesh said.

Calling the Election Commission's IT division "rogue", Ramesh said the election commissioners had repeatedly raised concerns that it operated without transparency, exceeded its authority and took unauthorised action. "They wrote to the Cabinet Secretary about their concerns on ECINET and the functioning of the IT division. Many more revelations about the mess around the IT division have emerged since. There has been no change in its operation, nor any action on these issues," he said.

Describing the SIR as a "disaster", Ramesh alleged that several violations had emerged during the process and that Form 7 had been misused for large-scale deletion of names in nearly every state. He said the affidavit did not deny the accuracy of reports appearing in large sections of the media. "This is another confirmation of the gross malpractice and legal violations by the CEC," he claimed.

In its 248-page counter-affidavit, the Election Commission sought the summary dismissal of the petitions against the Chief Election Commissioner and the decisions taken by the poll body, PTI reported. It described the allegations as "misconceived" and said they were based on a single newspaper report.

"The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate," said the affidavit, filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the poll body. The Election Commission said the affidavit had itself been approved unanimously by all three members.

The poll body said the SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were issued following unanimous decisions. It said the decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Section 18 requires the Commission's work to be conducted unanimously as far as possible and by majority when its members differ. The Election Commission said the three SIR orders were issued in line with unanimous decisions taken under these provisions.

It said any suggestion, observation or question raised by a commissioner while a file was being processed did not amount to a decision of the Commission. According to the affidavit reported by PTI, files first go to one election commissioner, then to the other and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner, with approved decisions carrying the signatures of all three.

The poll body added that when urgent orders were required and members were not available in person, approval was obtained electronically and later recorded on the file.

The dispute centres on the Election Commission's claim that the SIR orders and its Supreme Court affidavit were unanimously approved, while the Congress has alleged changes to voter-registration procedures, unilateral decision-making and violations during the revision process.