(File Photo: IANS)
New Delhi, October 26 (IANS) The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that a plea seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from functioning is not maintainable, asserting that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the apex court.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the poll body also defended its decision-making procedure and the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The ECI said the petition, which questions whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar could individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member poll panel, was based entirely on a single newspaper report and sought extraordinary reliefs 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, adding that the petitioner had neither attempted to ascertain the factual position from the poll panel nor made any representation to it.
The ECI said the petitioner had himself described the material relied upon as an "investigative reportage" requiring verification, and argued that a newspaper report could not be treated as evidence of the facts it narrated.
"A public interest petition built on such material calls for its conclusions to be examined with circumspection," the affidavit stated.
The ECI further submitted that the petition did not dispute that the constitution of the Commission was in accordance with law and that the petitioner had accepted that the CEC was duly appointed.
It said the prayer seeking a writ of quo warranto was, therefore, misconceived.
On the prayer to restrain the CEC from functioning, the ECI invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides that the CEC shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like 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. It further argued that any restraint on the CEC would run contrary to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which governs the transaction of business by the poll body.
The provision requires the Commission to endeavour to take decisions unanimously, with matters on which its members differ being decided by majority.
The ECI said that any order restraining the CEC would frustrate the functioning and decision-making of the constitutional body under the statutory framework.
"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.
On the EC's decision-making and the SIR, the counter-affidavit, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, said that decisions on matters placed before the EC were taken after deliberations, with files and relevant documents being circulated among the two Election Commissioners and the CEC for approval. Such decisions were recorded in the official files and implemented through the ECI's Secretariat, it added.
The affidavit said the present counter-affidavit had been approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission, including the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.
It also clarified that suggestions, observations or queries exchanged among the members or with officials during the decision-making process did not, by themselves, constitute a decision of the poll body under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The ECI maintained that its orders initiating the SIR exercise on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, had been issued unanimously and in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory provisions.
Rejecting allegations that the poll body had improperly amended Form 6, the ECI said the declaration accompanying applications for inclusion in electoral rolls was a separate document prescribed under the SIR orders and not part of the statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It said the revised declaration introduced a facility for applicants to provide details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to earlier electoral rolls, potentially obviating the need to submit 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, recognising the ECI's authority to prescribe an appropriate framework subject to a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.
The affidavit said the SIR process was being conducted in accordance with the applicable law and that measures had been taken to facilitate voters, including home visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to collect documents from persons who received notices over discrepancies or the absence of links with previous electoral rolls.
The ECI urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions, contending that the allegations against the poll body were misconceived and that the extraordinary reliefs sought were not legally maintainable.
