New Delhi – The Election Commission of India (ECI) has robustly defended Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in the Supreme Court, refuting allegations of unilateral decision-making regarding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders. In an affidavit submitted to the apex court, the ECI asserted that all three SIR orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026, received unanimous approval from the full Commission.
The ECI affidavit, itself unanimously approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners, stated that the petitions questioning the CEC's functioning were based entirely on a single news report. The Commission clarified that internal communications, such as notes or queries from individual members during file processing, do not constitute official ECI decisions. Allegations based on communications between Election Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary were described as “misconceived.”
Form 6 Remains Unchanged, SIR Declaration Separate
A key point of contention addressed was the status of Form 6, used for voter enrollment. The ECI clarified that Form 6 has not been amended through the SIR orders, emphasizing that only the central government holds the authority to modify this form. The additional SIR declaration is a distinct document.
The Commission acknowledged that the online presentation of these documents could be misinterpreted as an amendment. To address this, the online application process will be separated into Form 6 and the declaration from October 21, aligning it with the physical application procedure. Changes made to the declaration under the October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, SIR orders were designed to facilitate voter mapping to existing electoral records, thereby reducing the need for extensive additional documentation, a feature not available during the Bihar SIR.
Voter Hearings and ECINet Security
Addressing concerns about voter hearings, the ECI stated that voters whose records cannot be mapped will not ordinarily need to attend physical hearings. Instead, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will collect necessary documents from their homes. Hearings will be reserved for exceptional cases, with a preference for online conduct.
Regarding the ECINet system, the Commission reaffirmed that no voter can be added to or removed from electoral rolls without a formal order from an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). To ensure compliance and security, a committee comprising experts from prestigious institutions like IIT and IISc has been constituted to examine the system.
Addressing Specific Allegations in Goa and West Bengal
The affidavit also tackled specific allegations concerning voter enrollment in Goa and appeals filed in West Bengal. In Goa, out of 97 voters reportedly left out, the ECI confirmed that 88 were already enrolled, six were living abroad, and three held Portuguese passports.
For West Bengal, the Commission clarified that appeals against voter inclusions were filed by officers of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer, acting under Supreme Court orders. The ECI explicitly stated, “These matters were not brought to the Commission.” The ECI concluded by arguing that the plea seeking to restrain the CEC was not maintainable, citing that the Constitution provides for the CEC's removal through a process akin to that of a Supreme Court judge.