The Election Commission of India (ECI) has defended Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before the Supreme Court, arguing that he cannot be removed except through the constitutional process applicable to a Supreme Court judge. The poll panel has also denied allegations that Kumar took decisions without the consent of the other two election commissioners.
In a joint affidavit filed late on Monday, October 26, Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi set out the Commission’s response to petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning. The document, spanning nearly 250 pages, maintains that the Commission’s decisions on electoral matters were taken in accordance with established procedures. The challenge has been brought by several opposition leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and other INDIA bloc leaders.
The Commission cited Section 18 of the 2023 law governing the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. It argued that any attempt to prevent the CEC from performing his duties must be consistent with the legal safeguards attached to his office.
The affidavit directly addresses allegations that Kumar had acted independently in decisions concerning the Commission’s work. The ECI said disagreements among its three members are resolved through majority voting. It further stated that the affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi.
The poll panel also rejected suggestions of a rift within the Commission, disputing reports that pointed to differences among its members. On the use of media reports in the case, the ECI maintained that newspaper articles could not be treated as evidence on their own. It also questioned whether petitions relying on such reports should be considered by the court.
The affidavit stated that the Commission had “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to any news agency”.
The Commission also defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has become a key issue in the legal challenge. According to the affidavit, three orders concerning the exercise, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, received the approval of all three commissioners.
The ECI denied claims that changes had been made to the law governing voter registration or to Form 6, the application used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
These clarifications respond to allegations that decisions related to the revision process were taken without the agreement of Sandhu and Joshi. The petitions have also questioned the Commission’s handling of Form 6. By citing the three orders and asserting that they were approved unanimously, the ECI sought to establish that the SIR-related decisions were not taken by the CEC alone.
The Supreme Court had said on October 5 that it would examine the Election Commission’s decisions and set aside those found to be contrary to law. It had also issued notices to the Union government and the ECI.
The Commission’s latest affidavit is its formal response to the challenges before the court. The proceedings raise questions about the statutory protections available to the CEC, the decision-making process within the poll panel and the legality of measures taken during the electoral roll revision exercise. The Supreme Court will consider the submissions as it examines the challenges to the Commission’s actions.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and is based on information available in the public domain.
