ECI Tells SC: CEC Removal Matches Supreme Court Judge

The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge, the Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Supreme Court, asserting that any attempt to restrain the functioning of the CEC violates the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

What Did the Election Commission Submit to the Supreme Court?

In a joint counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar alongside Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi strongly defended the institutional autonomy, collegiality, and integrity of the poll body. Replying to petitions alleging unilateral decision-making within the panel during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, the ECI urged the court to dismiss the petitions, calling the allegations misinformed, legally unmaintainable, and overwhelmingly dependent on media commentary.

The commission highlighted Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the 2023 statutory framework, emphasizing that constitutional safeguards protecting the tenure and authority of the CEC exist precisely to insulate election administration from executive or judicial interference during ongoing administrative processes. The poll body stated that seeking interim orders to restrain the head of an independent constitutional institution sets a perilous precedent that undermines the democratic framework.

Why Did the ECI Refute Reports of Internal Dissent?

Addressing media reports and petition claims regarding disagreement among panel members, the affidavit stated that all decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision orders—issued across 2025 and 2026—were approved unanimously by all members of the commission. The poll panel clarified that queries, internal administrative notes, or preliminary suggestions raised by individual commissioners during file deliberations reflect healthy institutional debate rather than functional division or formal dissent.

Regarding a disputed internal office order dated July 28, 2026, pertaining to work distribution and IT oversight, the Commission explained that the directive was issued by an officer on deputation beyond delegated authority. Following a joint review by the Election Commissioners on July 30, 2026, the order was immediately set aside and was never operationalized, demonstrating effective internal oversight rather than a breakdown of authority.

Was Form 6 Modified for Voter Registration?

The Commission flatly rejected assertions that Form 6—the statutory application form used for voter registration under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960—had been amended through administrative SIR directives. The affidavit clarified that only the Union Central Government possesses the legal competence to amend statutory electoral forms.

The additional verification documents (designated as Annexure D and subsequently Annexure IV) required during the SIR drive were standalone declarations designed to verify lineage and cross-check records against past electoral rolls. To eliminate public confusion caused by digital user interfaces displaying the declaration alongside Form 6, the Commission confirmed that the online platform was restructured to maintain a clear technical and legal separation between Form 6 and the supplementary SIR verification form.

How Were Voter Appeals Handled in West Bengal?

Addressing allegations regarding mass voter list appeals in West Bengal, the ECI informed the Supreme Court that actions taken by officers under the state's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) strictly adhered to earlier judicial directives. Over 16 lakh appeals concerning voter inclusions were filed by designated electoral officers in full compliance with binding court mandates to ensure electoral roll accuracy prior to upcoming polls.

Furthermore, the ECI reassured the court regarding voter convenience, stating that "unmapped" voters or individuals undergoing verification during the roll updating process will not be required to undergo unnecessary physical hearings. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been tasked with conducting home verification visits, reserving physical or virtual hearings solely for exceptional circumstances. The poll body concluded that its digital architecture, ECINET, maintains strict role-based authorization, preventing any unauthorized addition or deletion of voter entries without explicit orders from Electoral Registration Officers.