{
  "type": "article",
  "title": "Decisions on SIR Were Unanimous, Election Commission Tells Supreme Court on Plea Challenging CEC Functions",
  "summary": "In a counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Election Commission stated that SIR orders across June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 were passed with full unanimity.",
  "content": "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.\n\nUnanimous Decisions on SIR and File Notings\nAddressing 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.\n\nRegarding 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.\n\nVoter List Audits and Ground Verification Standards\nAddressing 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).\n\nThe 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.\n\nConstitutional Safeguards for the CEC and Maharashtra Challenge\nDefending 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nWhat this means for you\nThe Election Commission's clarification protects voter registration accessibility and preserves the independence of electoral oversight.\n\n• For voters nationwide: Unmapped voters do not need to attend formal hearings at administrative centers as Booth Level Officers will visit households directly to collect records. Additionally, the online Form 6 interface has separated the application and declaration segments starting October 21 to streamline digital enrollment.\n• In Maharashtra: Citizens face heightened scrutiny over electoral data after a legal petition claimed that nearly 33 percent of roughly 9 crore voters were dropped. The Supreme Court has already issued notices to authorities and will take up the next hearing on November 5.\n• In Goa: The Commission's audit demonstrated that 88 out of 97 supposedly excluded names were already properly enrolled. Only foreign passport holders and non-resident overseas individuals were omitted under standard nationality guidelines.\n• For institutional stability: The Commission affirmed that administrative duties of the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be arbitrarily stayed via public petitions. Because the removal threshold mirrors that of a Supreme Court judge, constitutional independence remains guarded against premature interference.\n\nWhy this happened\nThe Election Commission submitted its response to counter a petition that sought to challenge the functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner based on an external media report.\n\n• Reliance on media coverage: The petitioner contested internal commission protocols by relying on reported internal correspondence. The Commission contended that internal files were never approved for release and that the plea was entirely founded on external press reporting.\n• Legitimacy of SIR directives: The Commission clarified that Special Intensive Revision orders passed in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 were collectively and unanimously authorized by the CEC and both Election Commissioners. Informal queries and notes recorded on working drafts do not represent formal institutional decisions.\n• Constitutional protection mechanism: The panel argued that removing or restraining a Chief Election Commissioner requires following the constitutional impeachment procedure established for Supreme Court judges. Consequently, an ordinary petition seeking to paralyze the office holder is legally unsustainable.\n• Interim response due to holidays: Owing to the intervening Dussehra court break, the Election Commission placed a concise counter affidavit on record. The institution requested permission from the bench to follow up with a thorough, point-by-point pleading at a later stage.\n\nQuestions & Answers\n\n1. What prompted the Election Commission's counter affidavit in the Supreme Court?\nThe Election Commission filed its affidavit in response to a petition challenging the working and functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner.\n\n2. What did the Election Commission say regarding decisions taken on SIR?\nThe Commission stated that Special Intensive Revision orders in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 were cleared with full unanimity by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.\n\n3. Has any amendment been made to Form 6 for voter registration?\nThe Commission stated that Form 6 has not been amended as only the Central Government holds that authority, though online application and declaration sections were segregated starting October 21.\n\n4. What is the procedure established for verifying unmapped voters?\nUnmapped voters are not required to appear for hearings; instead, Booth Level Officers conduct door-to-door visits to collect required documentation.\n\n5. What were the findings regarding the 97 allegedly excluded voters in Goa?\nAn official check revealed that 88 persons were already enrolled on the rolls, 6 were residing abroad, and 3 held Portuguese passports.\n\n6. What constitutional protection does the Chief Election Commissioner hold according to the Commission?\nThe Commission argued that the CEC's removal process is equivalent to that of a Supreme Court judge, rendering petitions seeking to stay their functioning non-maintainable.\n\n7. When is the Supreme Court scheduled to hear the Maharashtra SIR matter?\nThe next Supreme Court hearing concerning the Maharashtra SIR case is scheduled for November 5.",
  "url": "https://trendkia.com/en/national/sarvasammati-se-lie-gae-the-sir-snbndhi-phaisale-election-commission-ne-chief-election-commissioner-ke-khilapha-yachika-para-supre-51989",
  "category": "India",
  "publishedAt": "2026-10-26",
  "tags": [
    "Election Commission",
    "Supreme Court",
    "Chief Election Commissioner",
    "Voter List",
    "Counter Affidavit",
    "Maharashtra SIR"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "site": "TrendKia"
}