The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly refuted allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally in matters related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, asserting before the Supreme Court that all relevant orders were unanimously approved by the Commission’s three members.
In its submission to the apex court, the ECI stated that the three SIR-related orders issued at different stages were collective decisions and not the actions of any individual member. The Commission argued that allegations of unilateral functioning stemmed from interpretations of internal discussions and media reports rather than officially recorded decisions.
The poll body emphasized that observations, suggestions, and queries exchanged during internal consultations do not constitute formal decisions under election laws. According to the Commission, only resolutions approved by the full Commission carry legal validity.
Addressing concerns regarding voter registration procedures, the ECI clarified that Form 6, used for voter enrollment, has not been amended. It acknowledged that the online presentation of the form may have led to confusion and said corrective steps have been taken to separately display Form 6 and the SIR declaration, mirroring the offline process.
The Commission also highlighted measures aimed at easing the burden on voters during electoral roll revisions. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been tasked with collecting necessary documents directly from electors, while hearings will be conducted only in exceptional situations and, wherever possible, through online modes.
On concerns surrounding ECINet, the ECI reiterated that no voter can be added to or deleted from electoral rolls without approval from the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). It further informed the court that a panel comprising experts from premier institutions, including IITs and IISc, is examining compliance and safeguards within the system.
The Commission also cited findings from a reported voter-enrollment discrepancy in Goa, stating that most individuals mentioned were already enrolled, while some were residing abroad or held foreign citizenship.
Rejecting demands seeking restrictions on the Chief Election Commissioner from discharging official duties, the ECI argued that such pleas are legally untenable. The Commission pointed out that the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner is governed by constitutional safeguards similar to those applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
The matter comes amid ongoing scrutiny of the electoral roll revision process, with the Election Commission maintaining that transparency, collective decision-making, and procedural safeguards remain central to its functioning.
