NEW DELHI: The Election Commission Monday filed an affidavit in SC that the chief election commissioner and the two election commissioners had unanimously taken the decision on June 24, 2025 to conduct nationwide SIR of electoral rolls and that there was no difference of opinion.The affidavit by deputy EC Bhanu Prakash Yeturu came with an unusual declaration that it was being filed with the approval of the CEC and the two ECs. “At the very outset, I state that the present affidavit has been approved for filing before the SC by a unanimous decision of the three members of the Election Commission, that is the 2 election commissioners and the chief election commissioner,” the affidavit said.The assertion contradicts the charge that CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at Modi government’s instance, unilaterally decided to conduct SIR of electoral rolls — the mainstay of the opposition’s “vote chori” campaign.The affidavit was filed in response to petitions, including one filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders, following a news report that the two ECs — S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — had approached the cabinet secretary because of their differences with the CEC over SIR-related issues.“Allegations based on the communication between ECs and the cabinet secretary are misconceived,” the EC said, adding that the letters by Sandhu and Joshi pertained to administrative matters.
No substance in claim that Form 6 was amended by SIR orders: EC
An office order came to be issued on July 28 by an IAS officer of the rank of additional secretary who had been posted on deputation to the commission pertaining to internal work allocation. On July 29, the two election commissioners wrote separate letters to the cabinet secretary in relation to this order and the conduct of the officer. In view of the joint direction of July 30 by the two ECs, the order of July 28 was never implemented,” the commission said. Responding to the petitions by Rahul and other INDIA bloc netas, the EC said all the petitions were based on a news article alleging that the commission had not been functioning in accordance with the procedure mandated in law, and allegations were also made questioning the integrity of the commission.It also issued a strong denial of the allegation, another key plank of the opposition’s offensive, that Form 6, as provided under Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, was amended by the commission by the SIR orders of June 24 and Oct 27 last year and May 14 this year. “There is no substance in the contention that Form 6 has been amended by the commission vide the SIR orders.” EC said Form 6 could be amended only by the Centre and what was changed was the introduction of a declaration to “enable the person seeking registration as a voter to dispense with the need for filing documents during the claims and objections period”.The ‘declaration’ was a document provided by the SIR orders and was not a part of Form 6, which was the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral rolls, it said, adding there was no significant change in the earlier and present declaration. The declaration that the affidavit was approved by the two ECs is significant because of the charge that the CEC’s “unilateral” calls on SIR-related issues were violative of the law, which required the poll body to take decisions unanimously or, when not possible, by majority. The opposition has demanded removal and prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar for violating the law.Denying the charge, the affidavit said that while the CEC, the ECs and even other officers may have expressed different views during deliberations, the decisions were taken in accordance with law. “The views by ECs/CEC of the commission during the decision-making process on the subjects before them are considered for arriving at the decision. It is upon consideration of all the views placed before the commission that the decision is taken and the orders are issued in accordance with the process,” the EC said.Explaining the process of decision-making in which views of all divisions concerned with the subject are considered in detail, the EC said, “In any such decision-making process, any suggestion, observation or query by the CEC or ECs either to the ECs or CEC or to any officer of the commission does not constitute a decision of the commission under Section 18 of the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.”It said the statute prefers a decision by unanimity but also provides for decision-making by majority in the three-member EC. The commission said the CEC and ECs had taken a unanimous decision on June 29 that “in case any person to whom notice has been issued during the ongoing SIR, for being unmapped and/or logical discrepancies, BLOs will visit the homes of such persons for collection of documents and thereafter upload them in the ECINet, for decision by the ERO”.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
“Such person shall not be called for hearing to the ERO/AERO officer. Only in exceptional circumstances, as defined by the ERO/AERO, will the hearing be held, preferably online. Any adult member of the family can be authorised by the elector to attend the hearing on their behalf,” EC said. Referring to the allegation relating to deletion of 97 voters in Goa, the commission said it had directed that no eligible voter should be left out of the rolls and pursuant to this, the BLOs conducted a house-to-house visit and found that 88 of the 97 had already filled Form 6 for inclusion of their names. Of the remaining nine, six were out of the country and three were Portuguese passport holders.
