Election Commission Denies Gyanesh Kumar Took SIR Decisions Unilaterally

The affidavit was submitted in response to a writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh. The Supreme Court had issued notices to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials in connection with the petition.

The petition was filed following a report by The Indian Express, which alleged that 14 key decisions related to the SIR process had been issued in the name of the Election Commission despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Rejecting these allegations, the Commission stated in its affidavit that the three orders concerning the SIR process, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions of the Commission.

The poll body argued that the petition was based entirely on a newspaper report and that the petitioner had not independently verified the factual accuracy of the claims with the relevant parties. On this basis, it contended that the petition was not maintainable.

The Commission also stated that it had never released any internal notes or files to the media, nor had it authorised anyone to do so.

Clarifying its decision-making process, the Election Commission said that notes, questions, suggestions or comments recorded by the Chief Election Commissioner or other Election Commissioners while processing a file cannot, by themselves, be treated as decisions of the Commission.

According to the affidavit, a file ordinarily moves first to one Election Commissioner, then to the second Election Commissioner and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner.

The Commission maintained that the decisions under challenge had been taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Under the law, decisions of the Election Commission should, as far as possible, be taken unanimously. If unanimity cannot be achieved, the decision must be taken by a majority.

The case involves petitions filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi and another petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh. The petitions allege that certain decisions concerning the SIR process and electoral rolls were taken without the consent of the full Election Commission.

On October 5, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Union government, the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other concerned parties. However, the court declined to grant interim relief at that stage to suspend Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner.

A separate petition was subsequently filed by opposition leaders. On October 15, the Supreme Court issued a notice on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other leaders of the opposition INDIA bloc. That petition also alleged that Kumar had exercised the Commission's collective powers without the knowledge or consent of the other two Election Commissioners.

The matter is scheduled for a hearing on October 27.

The Election Commission has separately denied allegations that it modified Form 6 through its SIR orders. It argued that only the Central government can amend the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to the Commission, the declaration sought during the SIR exercise is a separate document and does not constitute a modification of Form 6.

The controversy followed The Indian Express report alleging that the two Election Commissioners had objected to changes requiring applicants to establish a link between themselves, their parents or their grandparents and previous intensive electoral rolls.

The Commission acknowledged that the way the declaration was displayed on its online application platform could have created the impression that Form 6 had been modified.

It maintained, however, that the declaration was introduced to help map applicants to older electoral rolls and that the changes did not amount to an amendment of the statutory form.

The Election Commission also outlined measures it had adopted to simplify the SIR process and facilitate the inclusion of eligible voters in electoral rolls.

It said voters whose names could not be mapped to older electoral rolls would not ordinarily be required to appear for personal hearings. Booth Level Officers would visit their homes to collect the necessary documents and upload them to the ECINet platform for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

The Commission stated that hearings would be required only in exceptional cases and that, wherever possible, such hearings should be conducted online.

The poll body also argued that the petition seeking to prevent Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner was not maintainable.

Citing Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the Commission said the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through the same procedure and on the same grounds applicable to the removal of a Supreme Court judge.

The Commission further stated that the Supreme Court had already considered repeated challenges to the reliability of electronic voting machines (EVMs).

Citing the intervening Dussehra holidays, the Election Commission said it was filing a brief response for the time being.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled to hear the matter on October 27. When the Supreme Court issued notices on October 5, it had refused to pass an ex parte interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar from his position as Chief Election Commissioner.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, had said it would examine the decisions and take appropriate action if they were found to be contrary to the law.