The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court on October 26, 2026, that all orders concerning the special intensive revision of electoral rolls were unanimous, rejecting allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally or that statutory voter registration forms were unlawfully altered.
The nearly 250-page counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court late on Monday, October 26, 2026, directly answers a series of petitions challenging the commission’s handling of electoral roll revisions.
But the poll panel pushed back hard, arguing that the underlying petition rests entirely on a single media report published by the Indian Express on September 25, which alleged that 14 crucial decisions were taken despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
#BREAKING All SIR-related decisions were unanimous, ECI tells Supreme Court in its counter-affidavit to petitions questioning the Election Commission's functioning.
— https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/2114728963092484309
Commission Follows Statutory Framework for Revision Orders
The commission maintained that the three Special Intensive Revision orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, followed proper internal procedures under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which mandates that the poll body’s decisions should be unanimous as far as practicable, or decided by majority.
At the very outset, I state that the present Affidavit has been approved for filing before this Hon’ble Court by a unanimous decision of the three members of the Election Commission, i.e. two Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.
Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, Deputy Election Commissioner, via Moneycontrol
The affidavit, sworn by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, addresses internal administrative correspondence leaked to the press. The poll panel explained that files are sent sequentially to one Election Commissioner, then the other, and finally to the CEC, with approved decisions recorded in files and bearing all three members’ signatures before implementation by the ECI Secretariat. It also noted that an office order concerning an additional secretary on deputation issued on July 28, 2026, was never implemented after the two election commissioners wrote separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary on July 29 regarding the conduct of the officer, followed by a joint direction on July 30.
Election Body Denies Modifying Statutory Form 6
Addressing allegations that it unlawfully modified the statutory Form 6 application document under the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960, the election body insisted that only the Central Government holds the power to amend statutory forms under Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in consultation with the Commission.
Instead, the additional declaration form requiring applicants to provide details linking themselves, their parents, or grandparents to previous intensive electoral rolls served as an independent document—introduced as Annexure D on June 24, 2025, and later rationalized as Annexure IV in subsequent orders—designed to facilitate mapping applicants with earlier rolls. The commission acknowledged that the online display of these documents could create the impression that Form 6 had been modified, prompting the ECI to clarify that the declaration applies strictly during the revision period and is withdrawn from online portals in states where the exercise is complete.
Statutory Protection for the Chief Election Commissioner
Beyond defending its revision timeline, the commission argued that attempts to suspend or restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar are legally barred.
The panel also provided regional updates in its filing, noting that out of 97 voters initially described as left out in Goa, 88 have already completed Form 6 for inclusion, six were abroad, and three held Portuguese passports. The ECI clarified that appeals filed in tribunals against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal electoral rolls were submitted by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer in their capacity as statutory authorities under the Representation of the People Act, pursuant to court orders rather than direct commission instructions.