NEW DELHI: Election Commission on Monday filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its functioning and the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The poll body rejected allegations of irregularities and questioned the basis of a petition challenging its decision-making process.According to Bar and Bench, the poll body said the petition was built entirely on a single news report. The affidavit, approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, addresses concerns over the Commission’s internal decision-making, alleged changes to voter enrolment forms, deletion of names and the functioning of its electoral databases.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The response comes after the Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. The petitioners have sought disclosure of official records, an independent audit of voter deletions, booth-wise lists of deleted electors and safeguards against the removal of eligible voters without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
What EC said in its 15-point rebuttal
In its counter-affidavit, the ECI made the following submissions, as reported by Bar and Bench:
- Affidavit approved unanimously by all three members: the CEC and both Election Commissioners
- All three SIR orders (June 2025, October 2025, May 2026) were unanimous decisions of the Commission
- Notes, queries or suggestions by the CEC or ECs while a file moves are not decisions of the Commission
- Files go to one EC, then the other EC, then the CEC. In urgent cases, approval is taken electronically and recorded on file later
- Any officer issuing orders beyond delegated powers will face action
- July 28 work allocation order was issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation. Both ECs wrote to the Cabinet Secretary the next day. The order was never implemented after the ECs’ joint direction of July 30
- Form 6 has not been amended. Only the Centre can amend it. The SIR declaration is a separate document
- Admits the online display could be read as an amendment. From October 21, the online application will be split into Form 6 and the declaration, as in the physical form
- Unmapped voters need not attend hearings. BLOs will collect documents from their homes. Hearings only in exceptional cases, preferably online
- ECINet: no name is added or deleted except by order of the ERO. A committee with experts from IIT and IISc has been set up to check compliance
- Goa: of 97 “left out” voters, 88 had already been enrolled, 6 were abroad and 3 held Portuguese passports
- West Bengal appeals against inclusion of voters were filed by officers of the CEO, West Bengal, under Supreme Court orders. “These matters were not brought to the Commission”
- Plea to restrain the CEC is not maintainable. CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge
- Commission never released or authorised the release of any internal note or file to the media
- Repeated challenges to EVMs already rejected by the Supreme Court
