The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly opposed the plea filed before the Supreme Court in which it has been alleged that the poll body's decisions are being taken by the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (CEC) in the name of ECI without the approval of other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

In its affidavit filed in response to the petition, the ECI has said that the petition is based solely on a single newspaper report and is not maintainable.

"In the eyes of law, a newspaper report is not treated as evidence of the facts it narrates. The Commission has neither released nor authorized the release of any internal note / file to any news agency," the affidavit said.

Interestingly, the ECI also said that its affidavit has been approved by a unanimous decision of all three members of the Commission.

According to the poll body, files in ECI go first to one Election Commissioner, then to the other and finally to the CEC.

As per the affidavit, a suggestion, observation or query by any Election Commissioner during this process does not constitute a decision of the Election Commission under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Pertinently, the ECI has stated that in urgent cases, the members give their approval electronically, and it is recorded on file later.

The affidavit added that action will be taken against officials who issue orders without approval of the competent authority.

Importantly, the ECI also said that contrary to various claims, Form 6 has not been amended by it since only the Central government can amend it.

The SIR declaration is a separate document, it said. However, the Commissioner admitted the online display could be construed as an amendment.

The affidavit was filed in response to a plea by one Rakesh Kumar Singh who moved the Court seeking a writ of Quo Warranto asking the CEC to explain under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission as a body.

The ECI comprises the CEC and two ECs. Whenever there is no unanimity among the three, decisions have to be arrived at based on majority. However, according to recent reports by the Indian Express, the ECI took various decisions despite two ECs not agreeing to the same.

The petition before the Court alleged “progressive centralisation” of power, absence/delay of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and filing of appeals without the two Election Commissioners’ knowledge or approval.

The petition highlighted 14 objections recorded by the two ECs between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 against the steps taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

If it is found that the CEC exercised, or continues to exercise, such collective authority without a decision of the Commission taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act, then such exercise of authority should be declared invalid, the plea sought.

The plea also sought a declaration that Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and all actions, decisions, directions and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to SIR be declared void ab initio and without lawful authority.

The Supreme Court had heard the plea on October 5 and sought the response of the ECI to the same.

Besides Singh's petition, various other petitions filed on the same issue by different individuals including Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi are also pending before the Supreme Court and will be heard along with Singh's petition.

In its affidavit, the ECI has now said that all three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026, were issued on unanimous decisions of the Commission.

"The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate," the affidavit said.

On the dispute over internal work allocation, the ECI said an office order was issued on July 28, 2026 by an IAS officer of the rank of Additional Secretary posted on deputation. On July 29, the two Election Commissioners wrote separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary about the order and the officer's conduct.

"In view of the joint direction dated 30 July 2026 by the two Election Commissioners, the order of 28 July 2026 was never implemented," the affidavit stated.

It termed allegations based on these communications "misconceived."

As regards allegations about Form 6 and the amendments made to it, the ECI rebutted the claim that it was amended through SIR orders.

Form 6 is to be filled by people seeking to register as voters for the first time. It is being used by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various States.

The modified Form 6 has been at the centre of the controversy after the ECI introduced an additional declaration requiring applicants seeking inclusion in the electoral roll to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll.

Critics have argued that this could create an additional hurdle for first-time voters, particularly those whose families were not on the old rolls, and that the ECI could not alter a statutory form without following the procedure for amending the relevant rules. 

In its affidavit, the ECI has now said that only the Central Government can amend it. The SIR declaration is a separate document, it said.

However, the ECI acknowledged that the way the declaration was presented online could be construed as though an amendment to Form 6 had been made.

This was done so that applicants would need only a single OTP and e-sign, it explained. By a decision of its ER Division dated October 21, 2026, the online application will now be in two parts, as is the case with physical forms.

On unmapped voters, the ECI said it decided on September 26, 2026 that Booth Level Officers will collect documents from their homes.

"Such persons need not be called for hearing to the ERO / AERO office," it said.

Hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online.

On ECINet, the ECI said that "no entry is added or deleted or modified except by order of the Electoral Registration Officer."

A committee to check ECINet's compliance with the law, including two independent experts from IIT Mumbai and IISc Bengaluru, was constituted on October 14, 2026.

Of 97 voters in Goa, the affidavit said 88 had already filed Form 6 and their applications had been accepted, six were out of the country and three were Portuguese passport holders or foreigners.

On appeals filed in West Bengal against the inclusion of voters, the ECI said that officers of the state's Chief Electoral Officer filed them under the Supreme Court's orders, and these matters were not brought to the Commission.

Citing Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which says the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge, the ECI said the prayer to restrain the CEC would not be maintainable.

The ECI also said it has filed a short reply because of the Dussehra vacation and sought liberty to file a detailed para-wise response to the petition.

[Read Live Coverage]