The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that a petition seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from exercising his functions is legally not maintainable, invoking Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which stipulates that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the apex court. The ECI's position was set out in a detailed counter-affidavit filed before the court on 26 October 2026.

The Core Constitutional Argument

The poll body's counter-affidavit argued that any judicial order restraining the CEC from functioning would directly contradict Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides near-equivalent tenure protection to that of a Supreme Court judge. The ECI further contended that such restraint would also 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 how the Commission transacts its business.

Under Section 18, the Commission is required to endeavour to reach decisions unanimously, with disagreements resolved by majority. The affidavit warned that restraining the CEC would 'frustrate the functioning and decision-making of the constitutional body under the statutory framework.'

ECI's Challenge to the Petition's Factual Basis

The ECI mounted a pointed challenge to the evidentiary foundation of the petition, noting that, by the petitioner's own admission, the entire case rested on a single newspaper report. The affidavit stated: 'The averments in the Writ Petition are admittedly based solely on a single newspaper report.'

The poll body further noted that the petitioner had himself characterised the material as 'investigative reportage' requiring verification, and argued that a newspaper report could not be treated as evidence of the facts it narrated. It also pointed out that the petitioner had not disputed that the Commission's constitution was lawful and had accepted that the CEC was duly appointed — rendering the prayer for a writ of quo warranto legally misconceived.

Unanimous Decision-Making and the SIR Exercise

The counter-affidavit, filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, offered a detailed account of the Commission's internal decision-making process. It stated that files and relevant documents were circulated among all three members — the CEC and both Election Commissioners — for deliberation and approval, with decisions recorded in official files and implemented by the ECI Secretariat.

Significantly, the affidavit disclosed that the counter-affidavit itself had been approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission. It also clarified that suggestions, queries, or observations exchanged among members during deliberations did not, by themselves, constitute a formal decision under Section 18 of the 2023 Act.

On the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the ECI stated that orders initiating the exercise — issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025, and 14 May 2026 — had all been issued unanimously and in compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and applicable statutory provisions.

Defence of Form 6 and Voter Facilitation Measures

Rejecting allegations that the ECI had improperly amended Form 6, the poll body clarified that the declaration accompanying applications for inclusion in electoral rolls was a separate document prescribed under the SIR orders and was not part of the statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The revised declaration introduced a facility for applicants to furnish details linking themselves or their parents or grandparents to earlier electoral rolls, potentially removing the need for additional supporting documents during the claims and objections stage.

The ECI also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the SIR documentation framework and recognised the Commission's authority to prescribe an appropriate structure provided it bore a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. To further facilitate voters, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been conducting home visits to collect documents from persons who received notices over discrepancies or missing links to earlier rolls.

What Happens Next

The ECI has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions in their entirety, contending that the allegations against it are misconceived and the extraordinary reliefs sought are legally unsustainable. The matter is now pending before the apex court, whose ruling will have significant implications for the constitutional independence of the Chief Election Commissioner and the ongoing SIR exercise ahead of future state and national elections.