The Election Commission of India (ECI) has officially defended Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar before the Supreme Court, firmly rejecting recent allegations regarding internal divisions. In a recent counter-affidavit, the election watchdog stated that all three directives related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were passed with the complete agreement of all three Commission members.

The poll body aggressively challenged the legal validity of a recent petition seeking action against the CEC, asserting that the case is entirely “not maintainable” as it relies solely on a single unverified media report.

This strong clarification from the ECI comes in the wake of growing pressure from opposition parties. Following a report published by The Indian Express, which suggested there were internal disagreements within the panel over the voter revision exercise, political leaders have increasingly demanded Kumar’s removal. However, the Election Commission has held its ground, arguing that the petition targeting his role lacks any legal foundation.

In its filing, the Commission noted that the SIR orders in question—issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026—were absolute, unanimous decisions approved by the CEC alongside both Election Commissioners. The affidavit itself was also approved unanimously by the trio. Because this document was submitted as a brief reply during the court's Dussehra vacation period, the ECI has requested permission from the Supreme Court to submit a much more thorough, paragraph-by-paragraph response in the near future.

Polling Body Outlines Its Internal Decision-Making Rules

To directly address the rumors of internal conflict, the Election Commission took the opportunity to explain its day-to-day administrative workflow. The poll body made it clear that when individual members write down observations, ask questions, or offer suggestions on a file, these notes are merely part of the review process. They should not be mistaken for final, binding decisions made by the Commission as a whole.

The affidavit detailed that official files are reviewed in a strict sequence. One Election Commissioner examines the file first, followed by the second Commissioner, before it is finally presented to the Chief Election Commissioner. If a matter is highly urgent, the members can grant their approvals electronically, and the specific details are officially recorded in the physical file later.

By outlining these standard operating procedures, the ECI aims to draw a clear line between routine daily discussions and the formal, final resolutions adopted by the institution. Furthermore, the Commission issued a strict warning that any officer who signs off on orders outside the boundaries of their delegated authority will face immediate disciplinary action.

Form 6 Dispute: Panel Denies Altering Voter Registration Document

The affidavit also tackled the ongoing public confusion regarding Form 6, the standard document eligible citizens use to apply for inclusion in the national electoral roll. Recent rumors suggested that the Commission had altered the form to include a new declaration for the SIR exercise.

The Election Commission firmly denied this, stating that Form 6 remains completely unchanged. The poll body clarified that only the Central Government has the legal authority to amend this prescribed form. The SIR declaration, they explained, is an entirely separate document.

However, the Commission did acknowledge a digital design flaw: the way the two documents were presented together on their official portal may have accidentally given voters the impression that Form 6 had been modified. To clear up this misunderstanding, the ECI announced that starting on October 21, the online application system will clearly separate Form 6 from the SIR declaration, ensuring the digital user experience matches the physical paperwork.

Panel Clarifies In-Person SIR Hearings Are Not Mandatory For Voters

Addressing anxieties over the voter verification process, the Election Commission assured the public that citizens who could not be mapped during the recent SIR exercise will not automatically be forced to attend in-person hearings to prove their identity.

According to the court document, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will be dispatched directly to citizens' homes to collect any necessary verification documents. The Commission stressed that formal hearings will be reserved strictly for exceptional cases. Even then, the ECI plans to conduct these hearings online whenever possible to minimize the burden on the public.

The poll panel also addressed concerns surrounding ECINet, its internal database network. The affidavit guaranteed that no voter can be added to or deleted from the electoral roll without a formal, written order from a designated Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). To further ensure strict compliance and system integrity, the ECI has set up a specialized committee featuring experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc).

Commission Details The Current Status Of 97 Disputed Voters In Goa

During the proceedings, questions were raised regarding a specific group of voters who were reportedly excluded from the electoral rolls in Goa. The Election Commission provided a precise breakdown of the 97 individuals whose registration status had sparked public concern.

According to the official data provided by the ECI, the overwhelming majority—88 of these voters—have already been successfully enrolled. Of the remaining nine individuals, six are currently residing overseas, and three are holding Portuguese passports, which impacts their eligibility. This detailed accounting was presented to demonstrate the poll body's thoroughness during the roll revision process.

The Commission also touched upon legal appeals regarding voter inclusion in West Bengal. The ECI clarified that these particular court cases were initiated by officials from the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in direct compliance with previous Supreme Court instructions, noting that these specific matters were never actually brought before the central Commission itself.

Panel States CEC Removal Must Follow Strict Constitutional Procedure

Closing its arguments against the petition seeking to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Election Commission reiterated that the plea holds no legal weight. The affidavit reminded the court that the Chief Election Commissioner is shielded by strict statutory protections. The process to remove a CEC is deliberately rigorous and is governed by constitutional provisions identical to those required to impeach a judge of the Supreme Court.

The Commission also took the opportunity to categorically deny leaking—or authorizing the release of—any internal files or notes to the media, firmly pushing back against the news reports that sparked this latest wave of political outrage. To bolster its defense against what it views as frivolous legal challenges, the affidavit also pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously rejected multiple, repeated petitions challenging the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

As this submission enters the public record, the political battle over the Special Intensive Revision exercise shows no signs of cooling down. Opposition parties continue to demand accountability, while the Election Commission awaits the opportunity to file its comprehensive, detailed response. The core issue now resting before the Supreme Court is twofold: whether the initial petition challenging the CEC’s functioning can legally proceed, and how the court will evaluate the media-driven allegations in light of the Commission's firm, unified defense.