ELECTION COMMISSION MOUNTS A 15-POINT DEFENCE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, REJECTS OPPOSITION’S CHARGES OVER VOTER-ROLL REVISION
October 26, 2026
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a 15-point counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court, rejecting allegations of irregularities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and defending the decision-making process of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners.
The affidavit, filed on Monday, October 26, comes amid a growing legal and political confrontation over the revision of electoral rolls, the handling of voter-registration procedures and allegations that crucial decisions were taken without the collective approval of the Commission. The poll panel has denied these allegations and maintained that its decisions relating to the SIR were unanimous.
The response follows petitions brought before the Supreme Court by Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc representatives, seeking greater transparency in the electoral-roll revision process. The petitioners have called for access to relevant official records, an independent audit of voter deletions and safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed from electoral rolls without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
COMMISSION SAYS ALL THREE SIR ORDERS WERE UNANIMOUS
One of the central arguments in the ECI’s affidavit is that all three major orders concerning the SIR, issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously by the three-member Commission.
The affidavit was approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, according to reports on the filing.
The Commission has challenged the basis of the allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally. It argued that the petition relies entirely on a newspaper report and questioned whether the claims had been independently verified with the respondents before the legal proceedings were initiated.
The ECI also stated that observations, queries, suggestions or notes recorded by individual commissioners while examining official files do not, by themselves, constitute formal decisions of the Commission. According to its explanation, the ordinary procedure involves files passing from one Election Commissioner to the other before reaching the CEC. In urgent cases, approval may be obtained electronically, with the decision subsequently recorded on the file.
The Commission’s position is that differences or comments expressed during the processing of files should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that a final institutional decision was taken without the required approval.
DISPUTE OVER VOTER-REGISTRATION FORMS
Another important issue concerns Form 6, which is used for the inclusion of new voters in electoral rolls. The Opposition has questioned changes to the online voter-registration process and raised concerns about whether applicants were being required to provide additional declarations.
The ECI has maintained that Form 6 itself has not been amended, arguing that only the Central government has the authority to make such a change. It has distinguished the SIR declaration from the prescribed voter-registration form.
However, the Commission acknowledged that the online presentation could be interpreted as suggesting that the form had been altered. It stated that the online application process would be divided into Form 6 and the separate declaration, following the arrangement used for physical applications.
The issue has become significant because the revision process involves verifying voter details and determining whether individuals should remain on, be added to or be removed from electoral rolls. The Opposition has argued that such procedures must be transparent and should not create additional obstacles for eligible citizens seeking to exercise their voting rights.
ECI DEFENDS PROCEDURES FOR UNMAPPED VOTERS
The Commission has also addressed concerns involving voters whose records cannot readily be matched with the relevant historical electoral data, commonly described as “unmapped” voters.
According to the affidavit, such voters do not automatically have to attend hearings. Booth-level officers are expected to collect documents from their homes, while hearings should be required only in exceptional circumstances and should preferably be conducted online.
The explanation is intended to clarify how verification will be carried out for individuals whose details cannot be readily mapped to the required records. The practical impact of these procedures will depend on how effectively officials implement them and whether affected voters receive clear information about any documents or further action required.
The Opposition’s broader concern is that electoral-roll revision must not result in eligible citizens being excluded because of procedural difficulties, incomplete documentation or administrative errors. The Commission, for its part, has defended its verification process and rejected allegations that its decisions were improperly taken.
QUESTIONS OVER ECINET AND VOTER-ROLL DATA
The affidavit also addresses the functioning of ECINET, the Commission’s digital electoral platform. The ECI has stated that no voter’s name is added to or deleted from electoral rolls except through an order issued by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
The Commission has further said that a committee involving experts from the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science has been established to examine compliance relating to the platform.
The controversy surrounding digital electoral systems has intensified amid Opposition demands for greater disclosure about the software and methods used to identify discrepancies in voter data. Opposition leaders have questioned whether automated tools, including artificial intelligence, are being used and what safeguards exist to prevent genuine voters from being wrongly flagged.
The ECI has previously maintained that electoral registration officers make decisions about inclusion and exclusion on the basis of facts and records. Its latest response seeks to reinforce the distinction between the digital systems used to manage electoral information and the formal decisions that determine a voter’s status.
COMMISSION RESPONDS TO OTHER DISPUTED ISSUES
The 15-point affidavit also addresses several other matters raised in the legal challenges.
On the question of an alleged administrative order concerning the allocation of work within the Commission, the ECI stated that an order issued on July 28 by an Additional Secretary on deputation was not implemented following a joint direction by the Election Commissioners on July 30. It said the two Election Commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary the following day.
The Commission has also stated that officers who issue orders beyond their delegated authority may face action.
On a separate issue concerning Goa, the ECI addressed the status of 97 people described as having been left out of the electoral rolls. According to its affidavit, 88 had already been enrolled, six were abroad and three held Portuguese passports.
Regarding appeals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal, the Commission stated that these had been filed by officers of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer under Supreme Court directions and that the matters had not been brought before the Commission itself.
The ECI also rejected the contention that the legal proceedings could justify restraining the CEC in the manner sought by the petitioners. It argued that removal of a Chief Election Commissioner is governed by constitutional safeguards comparable to those applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
The Commission further stated that it had neither released nor authorised the release of internal notes or files to the media. It also referred to previous Supreme Court decisions rejecting repeated challenges to electronic voting machines.
OPPOSITION’S DEMAND FOR TRANSPARENCY REMAINS BEFORE THE COURT
The Opposition’s legal challenge goes beyond the question of whether the SIR orders were formally unanimous. The petitioners have sought disclosure of official files, agendas, minutes, internal notings and objections relating to disputed decisions, as well as access to relevant digital-system records.
They have also sought an independent examination of voter deletions and measures to ensure that the removal of eligible voters is not carried out without due process. These demands reflect concerns about transparency, accountability and the ability of affected citizens to challenge errors in electoral records.
The Commission’s counter-affidavit presents its formal defence of its procedures, but the filing does not itself resolve the disputed questions. The Supreme Court will have to consider the parties’ submissions and determine the legal issues raised in the petitions.
The controversy has become politically sensitive because electoral-roll revision directly affects the preparation of voter lists and the protection of citizens’ voting rights. At the same time, the legal question before the court concerns the Commission’s statutory decision-making procedures, the use of administrative and digital systems, and whether the challenged actions complied with applicable law.
The ECI’s response marks a significant stage in the dispute, placing its explanation of the SIR process and its internal procedures formally before the Supreme Court. The next phase will depend on the court’s examination of the affidavit, the evidence relied upon by the petitioners and any further responses submitted by the parties.
Until the court reaches a determination, the allegations of unilateral decision-making and electoral irregularities remain contested. The proceedings will test the Commission’s explanations against the legal requirements governing electoral administration and the safeguards intended to protect eligible voters.
