The Election Commission has formally responded in the Supreme Court against a petition challenging the working and functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). In its counter affidavit, the poll panel challenged the legal premise of the matter, arguing that the petition is entirely anchored in an external news report and does not stand up to judicial scrutiny. The Commission sought to dispel questions raised over its decision-making framework, detailing how statutory processes are executed within the body.
Unanimous Decisions on SIR and File Notings
Addressing the core allegations around institutional governance, the Election Commission stated that the counter affidavit itself was cleared unanimously by the CEC alongside both Election Commissioners. The Commission stressed that Special Intensive Revision (SIR) directives issued across June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 represented decisions adopted with complete internal consensus. The panel clarified that remarks, questions, or informal suggestions recorded on internal office files by the CEC or the Election Commissioners cannot be treated as official rulings of the Commission, as only final collective determinations hold institutional authority.
Regarding concerns over voter registration documents, the Commission confirmed that Form 6 has undergone no structural modification, pointing out that statutory power to amend electoral forms rests solely with the Central Government. While acknowledging that the digital layout on the online portal appeared similar to an amendment, the Commission noted that starting October 21, the application form and the accompanying declaration were separated into distinct sections to remove any ambiguity.
Voter List Audits and Ground Verification Standards
Addressing protocol for unmapped electors, the Commission told the bench that summoning such individuals for in-person administrative hearings is not mandatory. Instead, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are assigned to conduct physical home visits to inspect and collect required identification documents directly from residents. Furthermore, the submission explained that within the digital ECINet architecture, no voter entry can be appended or excised without a formal, binding direction from the designated Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
The counter affidavit provided specific verification metrics to rebut claims of widespread omission. Citing the case of 97 voters in Goa who were claimed to have been excluded from rolls, the Commission revealed that 88 of those individuals were already securely listed on the active electoral roll. Of the remaining 9 cases, 6 individuals were residing abroad, while the other 3 held Portuguese passports, legally justifying their exclusion from domestic voter registries.
Constitutional Safeguards for the CEC and Maharashtra Challenge
Defending the integrity of the constitutional office, the Commission contended that the procedure for removing a Chief Election Commissioner mirrors that of a Supreme Court judge. Given this robust constitutional safeguard, a petition seeking to restrain the CEC from discharging official administrative responsibilities is inherently non-maintainable. The panel also asserted that it never authorized the leakage or release of any internal departmental file or note to the press. Noting that a concise submission was entered due to the Dussehra vacation, the Commission sought judicial leave to present a complete, clause-by-clause rejoinder.
This development follows earlier litigation challenging Maharashtra's voter list revision exercise before the Supreme Court. In that matter, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing petitioner Arun Anandagiri, had submitted that around 33 percent of voters were purged from an estimated electorate of approximately 9 crore individuals in Maharashtra. Following that hearing, notices were dispatched to the Central Government, the state administration, and the Election Commission, with the proceedings listed to resume on November 5.
