'Deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous': Congress debunks Election Commission's Supreme Court affidavit on SIR

Jairam Ramesh calls out the poll body over changing stances on Form 6, unilateral decisions by chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the functioning of ECINET and EC's IT division, which the other election commissioners flagged

The Congress on Tuesday described the Election Commission's affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as "deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous", asserting that it was "extremely damaging" to the poll body itself.

Taking a swipe at the poll body, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Jairam 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."

His remarks came after the EC strongly defended SIR before the Supreme Court, maintaining that the exercise was authorised by law and the poll body's three members unanimously approved the relevant orders.

Rejecting allegations that Form 6 had been amended, the poll panel, in its 248-page response to a petition challenging Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's functioning and certain Commission decisions, said it made no changes to the statutory Form 6 used for voter registration.

"It is also extremely damaging -- to itself," Ramesh said of the affidavit on X.

Alleging an "illegal amendment" of Form 6, Ramesh said the EC had engaged in patent deception and word games on this point.

"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 the new declaration form is separate and that Form 6 was not amended. But this is a deception - Form 6 could not be submitted online without filling this mandatory declaration," he said.

Claiming the EC's stance kept changing, Ramesh pointed out that on September 26 it said this declaration was attached to Form 6, but now it is not part of Form 6.

"The ECI cannot cover up its blatant violation of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960," he said.

Alleging unilateral decisions by CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Ramesh said the EC had shifted the goalposts by claiming all three members of the Commission formally approved the major SIR orders.

"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 learned of these decisions from the news. This is not unanimity but unilateral decision-making," Ramesh said.

Ramesh also alleged that the two election commissioners recorded concerns about using ECINET to centralise control over electoral rolls and override electoral registration officers (EROs), the statutory authorities.

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

Calling the EC's IT division "rogue", Ramesh said the two election commissioners had repeatedly expressed concern that it operated opaquely, overstepped its mandate and took unauthorised actions.

"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," Ramesh said.

Calling the SIR a "disaster," Ramesh said numerous illegalities and violations had emerged in the SIR process and that, in nearly every state, Form 7 had been misused for mass deletions.

Ramesh said the affidavit did not deny the veracity of the ongoing revelations in large sections of the media.

"This is another confirmation of the gross malpractice and legal violations by the CEC," he claimed.

In its counter-affidavit, the poll body sought summary dismissal of the petitions and called the allegations "misconceived", saying they rested 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 Commission.

On Form 6, the EC maintained that the SIR declaration was a separate document. It acknowledged that the online presentation could give the impression that the statutory form had been amended, and said the online process had been separated into Form 6 and the SIR declaration from October 21.

On ECINET, the Commission said it could not add or delete a name from an electoral roll without an order from the competent ERO.

The EC said the Commission unanimously approved the affidavit for filing.

It said the SIR orders of June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were issued following unanimous decisions taken in compliance 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 to transact its business unanimously as far as possible, and by majority where members differ.

The EC said any suggestion, observation or query raised by a commissioner while a file is being processed "does not constitute a decision" of the Commission.

It explained that files ordinarily move first to one election commissioner, then to the other, and finally to the CEC, and that approved decisions bear all three signatures. It said that when urgent orders are needed and members are not available in person, they approve electronically and record the approval on the file later.