The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court on a petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, stating that the plea relies solely on a single news report.

The poll body said that the affidavit, along with all three Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026, were unanimously approved by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, Bar and Bench reported. 

ALSO READ: Form 6 Not Amended, Only Centre Can Do It: ECI Tells SC On Plea Against SIR Changes

What ECI Said In Its 15-Point Counter-Affidavit

  • The counter-affidavit was approved unanimously by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.
  • All three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 were unanimous decisions of the Commission.
  • Internal notes, queries, or suggestions made while a file moves through the office do not constitute final decisions. Files are reviewed by one EC, then the second EC, before reaching the CEC. In urgent cases, electronic approval is taken and recorded on file later.
  • Any officer issuing orders beyond their delegated powers will face action. A July 28 work allocation order issued by an Additional Secretary on deputation was never implemented following the EC's joint direction on July 30.
  • The Commission stated it never released or authorised the release of any internal notes or files to the media.
  • Form 6 has not been amended, as only the Central Government can amend it; the SIR declaration remains a separate document.
  • Acknowledging that the online display could be interpreted as an amendment, the ECI stated that from October 21, the online application will split Form 6 and the declaration to match the physical form.
  • Unmapped voters do not need to attend hearings in person. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will collect documents from their homes, with hearings only for exceptional cases, preferably online.
  • No voter name can be added or deleted on ECINet without an order from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). A committee with experts from IITs and IISc has been formed to check compliance.
  • Out of 97 "left out" voters in Goa, 88 were already enrolled, six were abroad, and three held Portuguese passports.
  • Appeals regarding voter inclusions in West Bengal were filed by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, under Supreme Court orders, and were not brought directly to the Commission.
  • Plea to restrain the CEC was not maintainable; a CEC can only be removed through the same procedure as a Supreme Court judge.
  • Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected past challenges to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
  • A short reply has been filed due to the Dussehra vacation, and the ECI sought the court's permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise response later.

ALSO READ: Notes Or Queries Do Not Constitute A Decision Of Commission: ECI Tells SC On Dissent Row