New Delhi, October 26, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that a petition seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from functioning is not legally maintainable, arguing that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the ECI defended its decision-making process and the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, maintaining that the orders initiating the exercise were issued unanimously and in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws.
The poll body said the petition questioning whether the CEC could individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member Commission was based entirely on a single newspaper report. It argued that the petitioner had sought extraordinary relief without establishing the factual basis for the allegations.
“The averments in the Writ Petition are admittedly based solely on a single newspaper report,” the affidavit stated. It added that the petitioner had neither attempted to ascertain the factual position from the Commission nor submitted any representation to it.
The ECI noted that the petitioner had himself described the material relied upon as “investigative reportage” requiring verification. It argued that a newspaper report could not automatically be treated as evidence of the facts it narrated.
“A public interest petition built on such material calls for its conclusions to be examined with circumspection,” the affidavit stated.
The Commission further submitted that the petition did not dispute that its constitution was in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had accepted the validity of the CEC’s appointment. On this basis, it argued that the plea seeking a writ of quo warranto was misconceived.
Opposing the request to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, the ECI invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides that the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
“The prayers in the Writ Petition for passing of an order restraining the CEC would not be maintainable,” the affidavit stated.
The poll body also cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which governs the transaction of business by the Commission.
Under the provision, the Commission must endeavour to take decisions unanimously, with matters on which its members differ being decided by a majority. The ECI argued that restraining the CEC would undermine the functioning and decision-making of the constitutional body under the statutory framework.
“Any such prayer shall also not be maintainable being in the teeth of/contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the 2023 Act,” it submitted.
The counter-affidavit, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, detailed the Commission’s internal decision-making procedure. It said matters placed before the ECI were decided after deliberations, with files and relevant documents circulated among the CEC and the two Election Commissioners for consideration and approval.
According to the affidavit, decisions were recorded in official files and implemented through the Commission’s Secretariat. It also stated that the present counter-affidavit had been approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.
The ECI clarified that suggestions, observations and queries exchanged among the members or with officials during deliberations did not, by themselves, constitute a decision of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2023 Act.
Defending the SIR exercise, the Commission maintained that its orders initiating the process on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were issued unanimously and in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory provisions.
The ECI also rejected allegations that it had improperly amended Form 6, used for applications seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. It submitted that the declaration accompanying such applications was a separate document prescribed under the SIR orders and did not form part of the statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Commission said the revised declaration allowed applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to earlier electoral rolls. This, it argued, could eliminate the need to submit additional documents during the claims and objections stage.
The affidavit also referred to the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026, judgment, which upheld the documentation framework for the SIR exercise and recognised the ECI’s authority to prescribe an appropriate framework, provided it had a rational connection with the objective being pursued.
Maintaining that the revision exercise was being conducted in accordance with the applicable law, the Commission said steps had been taken to facilitate voters. These included home visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to collect documents from people who received notices because of discrepancies or the absence of links with previous electoral rolls.
The ECI urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions, contending that the allegations against the Commission were misconceived and that the reliefs sought against the CEC were not legally maintainable.
FOLLOW NOW
