New Delhi: The Election Commission has responded to the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the functioning of the CEC. The Election Commission filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court. The Commission claims that the petition is based entirely on a news report.
What did the Election Commission say in its reply?
The Election Commission said, the CEC and both the election commissioners unanimously approved the affidavit. Even the Commission decisions on SIR orders of June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were taken unanimously. Comments, questions or suggestions on the file of CEC or Election Commissioners cannot be considered as decisions of the Commission.
The Election Commission said, there was no change in Form 6, only the Central Government has the right to amend it. Admitted to looking like an amendment in the online form and said that the application and declaration form will be separated from October 21.
Election Commission said, it is not necessary to call unmapped voters for hearing, BLOs will go to their homes and collect documents. No voter’s name is added or deleted on ECINet without the orders of ERO.
Of the 97 voters reported missing in Goa, 88 were already included in the voter list, 6 were from abroad and 3 held Portuguese passports, the Election Commission said.
What did the Commission claim regarding the process of removing CEC from the post?
The Commission claims that the process of removing CEC from the post is like that of a Supreme Court judge, the petition to stop him is not maintainable. The commission said it did not allow any internal notes or files to be released to the media. Due to Dussehra holiday, a brief reply has been filed and permission has been sought to give a detailed point-wise reply.
Affidavit filed jointly by the Chief Election Commissioner and the remaining 2 Election Commissioners
This affidavit has been filed jointly on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner and the remaining 2 Election Commissioners. The Commission has rejected the allegation that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is taking decisions alone. According to the Commission, the affidavit has been unanimously approved by all three members i.e. the Chief Election Commissioner and both the Election Commissioners.
The Election Commission has further said in the affidavit that the suggestions, ideas and questions of the officials and election commissioners are considered before taking any decision. After taking into account all relevant views, the competent members of the Commission take decisions and orders are issued accordingly.
The Election Commission file is first sent to an Election Commissioner, then to another Election Commissioner and finally to the Chief Election Commissioner. After approval, the decision is recorded in the Commission’s file and signatures of the concerned Commissioners are obtained. After this, the Secretariat of the Election Commission issues notice of that decision and implements it.
In the Election Commission, any suggestion, idea or question given by the Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioners to other commissioners or any officer of the Commission is not in itself considered to be an official decision of the Election Commission. The official decision will be only that which is taken by the Commission as per the procedure prescribed in the law.
“The allegations made on the basis of correspondence between the Election Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary are based on a misunderstanding.”
The Election Commission has made it clear that the allegations made on the basis of correspondence between the Election Commissioners and the Cabinet Secretary are based on misunderstanding. The internal work in the Election Commission was being distributed continuously as per the old office order of 23 September 2025. On July 28, 2026, an Additional Secretary level IAS officer posted on deputation to the Election Commission issued an office order related to internal division of work. On July 29, 2026, both the Election Commissioners wrote separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary regarding this order and the conduct of that officer. Subsequently, due to joint instructions being issued by both the Election Commissioners on 30 July 2026, the order dated 28 July 2026 was never implemented.
The Commission has rejected the allegation that Form 6 was amended through orders related to SIR. The Commission made it clear that only the Central Government has the right to make changes in Form 6. The Declaration Form is a separate document. However, the Election Commission acknowledged that Form 6 and the Declaration Form were displayed on the online portal in such a way that it could appear as if changes had been made to Form 6.
From October 21, it has been said that the online application will be divided into two separate parts – one Form 6 and the other declaration form. The system of mapping was introduced by making changes in the declaration form, so that applicants can provide information about themselves or their parents/grandparents as recorded in the old voter list of 2002–2003. This could reduce the need to submit additional documents and provide convenience to voters.
Let us tell you that earlier the news had come out that the Maharashtra SIR case has reached the Supreme Court, after which notice has been sent to the Central, State Government and Election Commission. The next hearing in the case will be on November 5. Senior advocate Arvind Datar appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner Arun Anandagiri. He said in the court that there are about 9 crore voters in Maharashtra and about 33 percent of these people’s names have been removed from the voter list.
Read this also-
INDIA Bloc Protest: Opposition press conference after tea party at Rahul Gandhi’s house, targets CEC
SK Sharma is a content writer who writes on news, entertainment, and lifestyle topics. She has over four years of experience and is known for conveying information in simple and clear language.
