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 poll body 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.

The ECI said the petition, which questions whether the CEC can individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member Commission, relies entirely on a single newspaper report and seeks extraordinary relief without establishing the factual basis for its 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 sought to verify the facts with the Commission nor made any representation to it.

The poll body further noted that the petitioner had described the material as an "investigative reportage" requiring verification. It argued that a newspaper report could not, by itself, be treated as proof of the facts it contained.

"A public interest petition built on such material calls for its conclusions to be examined with circumspection," the affidavit stated.

The ECI also submitted that the petitioner had not disputed the legality of the Commission's constitution and had accepted that Gyanesh Kumar was duly appointed as CEC. It, therefore, argued that the plea seeking a writ of quo warranto was misconceived.

ECI cites constitutional protection for CEC

Opposing the request to prevent 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 Commission 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 how the poll body conducts its business.

Under the provision, the Commission must endeavour to reach decisions unanimously, with matters on which its members differ being decided by a majority.

The ECI argued that restraining the CEC would interfere with the functioning of the constitutional body and its statutory decision-making process.

"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.

ECI says SIR orders were unanimous

The counter-affidavit, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, said decisions on matters placed before the Commission were taken after deliberations. Files and relevant documents were circulated among the CEC and the two Election Commissioners for approval, with decisions recorded in official files and implemented through the ECI Secretariat.

The affidavit also stated that the counter-affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.

It clarified that suggestions, observations or queries exchanged among members or with officials during deliberations did not, by themselves, constitute a decision of the Commission under Section 18 of the 2023 Act.

The ECI maintained that its orders initiating the SIR exercise 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 laws.

ECI defends Form 6 changes and SIR process

Responding to allegations that it had improperly amended Form 6, the Commission said the declaration accompanying applications for inclusion in electoral rolls was a separate document prescribed under the SIR orders. It maintained that the declaration did not form part of the statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to the ECI, the revised declaration allows applicants to provide details linking themselves, their parents or their grandparents to earlier electoral rolls. This could help applicants avoid submitting additional documents during the claims and objections stage.

The poll body 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.

The affidavit said the SIR was being conducted in accordance with the applicable law. It added that measures had been taken to assist voters, including home visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to collect documents from people who received notices over discrepancies or the absence of links with previous electoral rolls.

The ECI urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the allegations against the Commission were misconceived and that the reliefs sought were not legally maintainable.

(With IANS inputs)