New Delhi: Under intense fire over the rollout of the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with protests on the streets demanding chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, the Election Commission’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) seeks to showcase unanimity. This follows revelations in the Indian Express‘s report last month that the two election commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, had objected 14 times, after decisions had been taken, in just ten months after the exercise was initiated.A close reading of the affidavit shows that the Election Commission has actually not denied any of the findings in the Indian Express‘s report.While saying that a newspaper report is not treated as evidence in the eyes of law, it does not then dispute the findings of the report but instead says that the poll body has “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note/file to any news agency”.The Indian Express report had revealed that the two election commissioners had objected to the changes made to the online Form 6, with Sandhu calling them “illegal”. The affidavit, while stating that the Form 6 was not changed, admits that the declaration was “entered into the online page” of the form.Further, while the Indian Express report had noted that 97 eligible electors were left out of the rolls in Goa after the centralised ECINet software stopped state election officials from reversing the decision, the Election Commission affidavit does not dispute this either. Instead it only says that 88 of these 97 voters have already re-applied through Form 6 for inclusion.In the case of West Bengal, the report had revealed that appeals against the inclusion of voters cleared by judicial officers were filed by state election officials. This too has not been disputed, with the Election Commission instead saying in the affidavit that the “matters were not brought to the Commission”.Two election commissioners’ objections and unilateral decisions by the CECWhile the three members of the Election Commission are meant to work through a majority failing unanimous decision-making, a point reinforced by the cabinet secretariat in file notings made available via RTI, the Indian Express had reported that the two election commissioners had objected 14 times in ten months to the conduct of the SIR, including in records and on file notings, that decisions were taken without their knowledge.The Election Commission’s affidavit details the laws and provisions governing how the poll body works but, significantly, does not deny the objections made by the two election commissioners.The objections in the Indian Express report included Sandhu and Joshi questioning 16.1 lakh appeals filed against voters in West Bengal who were included by judicial officers; the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” through ECINet, “illegal” changes to Form 6 online; as well as communications sent in the name of the Election Commission without its requisite approval.While the affidavit says the decision-making process demands unanimity, the objections raised by the two election commissioners have raised concerns over unilateral decision-making.The affidavit starts by saying that it has been “approved” by a “unanimous decision of the three members of the Election Commission”. It also says that all three orders of the SIR – the pilot in Bihar, followed by the two other phases for which orders were issued in October 2025 and May 2026 – were “arrived at unanimously”.“All contentions to the contrary are erroneous and denied. The attempt to make aspersions against the Election Commission is unfortunate,” it says.While denying that decisions were not taken in accordance with the law, the affidavit says that “in any decision making process, suggestions, observations, varying views or queries by any official in the chain of command are taken into consideration for arriving at the decision by the competent authority.”It further adds that any “suggestion, observation or query by the chief election commissioner or the election commissioners either to other election commissioners/CEC or to any officer does not constitute a decision of the Election Commission”.Form 6 changed illegallyWhile the counter-affidavit has denied any amendment made to Form 6 – which is a statutory form for the inclusion of new electors and can only be amended by parliament – it has conceded that the declaration requiring an applicant to establish a connection to the previous SIR was “entered into the online page” to generate a single one-time password or e-sign.This, in effect, leads the Election Commission to admit that the online Form 6 had indeed been changed by making the contentious declaration a part of it. Election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections to the change to Form 6, with the former calling it “unauthorised” and “illegal”, as reported by the Indian Express last month.The affidavit also says that the manner in which the declaration was presented online “could be construed as though an amendment” to Form 6 had been made.Further, the affidavit includes contradictions on the declaration included with Form 6. While in its press note last month, the Election Commission said that the “declaration attached” to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court, now in its counter-affidavit, the poll body has said that the declaration is “not part” of Form 6, and is a “separate and independent document”. It states that it is only “one of the documents required to be submitted by any applicant/voter along with” Form 6.West Bengal appealsBoth the election commissioners had written to EC officials over appeals which were filed against voters in West Bengal despite being cleared for inclusion by judicial officers. These appeals by EC officials sought their deletion from the electoral rolls.The EC affidavit does not clarify which authority had permitted filing of those appeals and instead says that the names of those electors are already in the rolls.It states that the Commission received a communication from the West Bengal CEO that the appeals had been filed by officers of the CEO’s office, that the officers had the authority to do so under the directions of the Supreme Court and that these matters “were not brought to the Commission”.The affidavit quotes the Supreme Court orders from April 1 and April 6 to justify the appeals seeking exclusion. The April 1 order mentions that the Election Commission’s counsel informed the court that tribunals would hear appeals by the poll body against voter inclusions. It does not clarify on what basis they filed so many appeals on the evening of April 5, in a matter of a few minutes, as has been reported by The Wire‘s Aparna Bhattacharya.Goa’s left out votersThe Indian Express had reported that 98 voters were left out of the electoral rolls in Goa and attempts by local election officials to add them back were blocked by the centrally controlled software. The EC affidavit simply states in this case that 88 of them had been added back after they filed Form 6 applications for inclusion.It does not say (as the newspaper report had noted) why electoral registration officers (EROs) in Goa despite eight requests over seven days were not able to do so.Centralised softwareThis leads to the other substantial objection raised by Gyanesh Kumar’s two colleagues, Sandhu and Joshi, on ECINet, which houses all electoral rolls. The on-file objections had noted that the IT division had developed modules that were not brought to the Commission’s notice and they had found out through the media. Sandhu wrote on file that field officers had reported that they were not able to access the software.Here the affidavit says that EROs remain the statutory authority in charge of the electoral rolls of a particular constituency, that ECINet is a tool through which they act and that “no entry is added or deleted or modified except by order” of the ERO.The affidavit also says that a committee including experts from IIT Mumbai, IISc Bengaluru and senior electoral officials have been formed and new modules will be discussed in the committee before being put to the Election Commission.The Indian Express had reported that Joshi had recommended that a committee of external experts oversee how the Election Commission’s software was being used, citing its centralisation as a problem. While the affidavit states that such a committee has now been formed, it does not mention the serious concerns raised by the two election commissioners, or that this had been suggested earlier by them, or that EROs were not able to access the software.Letter to the cabinet secretaryThe two election commissioners had also written to cabinet secretary T.V. Somanathan and complained about changes in work allocation made by an officer that did away with crucial oversight despite their advice against it.The affidavit calls the allegations based on these communications “misconceived”. It says that the work allocation has been continuing according to the earlier office order, and that the work allocation direction given by the officer in question was “never implemented” after the two commissioners’ joint direction setting it aside.An RTI query has established that the two commissioners wrote to the cabinet secretary about deputy election commissioner (DEC) Maneesh Garg, who “within a few hours of assuming charge” as the link officer and DEC (administration), issued an order regarding work allocation among senior DECs, DECs and equivalent officers without “discussing or informing” the two election commissioners or the election commission.The affidavit, while claiming that the work order was “never implemented”, does not explain why the officer issued such orders immediately after taking charge and without informing the commission, or why – as Joshi had written to the cabinet secretary – the file on the allocation was not provided to the commissioners, despite them pointedly asking for it.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.