SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
New Delhi: Rejecting allegations reported in the media that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally, the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday, October 26, told the Supreme Court that all decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by its three members.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed in response to a petition challenging Kumar’s functioning and the legality of certain ECI decisions, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, also denied that the Form 6 used for enrolling new voters was amended.
The affidavit came in response to a writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, which had the apex court issue notice to the ECI, the CEC and other officials.
The affidavit said the three SIR orders of June 24, 2025; October 27, 2025; and May 14, 2026, were agreed upon unanimously 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.
Affidavit in the wake of controversy
The response comes amid furore over The Indian Express report that Sandhu and Joshi objected to Kumar’s decisions on at least 14 occasions over 10 months. This prompted petitions seeking judicial scrutiny of the Commission’s internal decision-making.
The affidavit said that notes, suggestions or observations made by the CEC or the ECs do not constitute decisions of the Commission. It said that files ordinarily move first to one EC, then to the other before being taken to the CEC.
Form 6 not amended
The ECI also denied that it amended Form 6 through SIR orders, maintaining that only the Centre can do so under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
It said that the declaration required during the SIR exercise is a separate document and is not an amendment to Form 6.
The controversy arose after The Indian Express reported that two ECs had objected to changes requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to the previous exercise.
The issue came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court clarified during an October 5 hearing that it had neither approved nor rejected the modified Form 6. The court said it wanted to examine the original records to determine what changes had been made and who had made them.
SOURCE : SIASAT
