CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, ECI tells top court

ECI’s affidavit said a media report on the inner frictions and alleged unilateral or authoritarian functioning of the CEC was hardly evidence in court. File

The Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners have filed a joint affidavit highlighting that any attempt to restrain the functioning of the CEC will be contrary to law.

The nearly 250-page document filed in the top court late on Monday (October 26, 2026) said a CEC cannot be removed from office except in the manner and the grounds identical to ousting a Supreme Court judge.

The affidavit said a media report on the inner frictions and alleged unilateral or authoritarian functioning of the CEC was hardly evidence in court. Petitions basing itself on media reports should not be even maintainable in court.

Petitioners who have challenged the functioning of the CEC include the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and other INDIA bloc leaders. Other petitioners include Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.

The affidavit, which shows the CEC to be on the same page as both Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, said the Commission had “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to any news agency”.

They submitted that the multi-member Commission, in case of any “difference of opinion” would follow the rule of majority to arrive at decisions in accordance with Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The affidavit indicated that there was no room for unilateral decision making in the ECI. Decisions were vetted at various levels.

“Decisions are first sent to one Election Commissioner and then to the other Election Commissioner and then finally to the CEC. Such approved decisions of the EC are duly noted in the files concerned of the EC and bear the signature of the Election Commissioners and the CEC. Thereafter, the decision is notified and implemented by the EC Secretariat,” the affidavit said.

However, the ECI concedes in the affidavit at one point that “in situations involving exigencies and particularly where the immediate issuance of appropriate orders is necessary, when it is not feasible for the CEC or any of the Election Commissioners to be available in person”, an approval of the members of the ECI is obtained through “electronic means” and recorded later in the official file.

“Important functions” were “directly under the Commission as a whole”. “Decisions taken in meetings of the EC or are noted in files bear the signatures of the Election Commissioners and the CEC,” the affidavit said.

An office order was issued on July 28, 2026 by an IAS officer of the rank of additional secretary who had been posted on deputation to the ECI pertaining to internal work allocation.

The affidavit, however, indirectly confirmed that Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Joshi had written to the Cabinet Secretary about the conduct of Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, following a controversial July 28 order affecting levels of IT oversight over electoral rolls. The order was passed without the knowledge or consensus of the two Election Commissioners.

“On July 29, the two ECs had written separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary in relation to this order and the conduct of the officer,” the affidavit. It said that the July 28 order was “never implemented”.

The ECI denied allegations that Form 6 was amended in consecutive special intensive revision (SIR) orders of June 24, 2025; October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026.

It reasoned that the additional declaration form requiring voters to provide details of mapping was “not part of Form 6, which is the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll”.

“The declaration form is one of the documents which is required to be submitted by any applicant along with Form 6 for inclusion in the electoral roll during the SIR exercise,” the affidavit said.

The poll body said the “mapping concept” in the additional declaration form only obviated the need for submitting further documents for verification. It was only a “measure taken for the assistance of voters”.

“There is no change in the Form 6,” the affidavit said.

The ECI said the 16.10 lakhappeals filed in tribunals against inclusion of voters in the West Bengal electoral rolls were indeed filed by the officers of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), West Bengal, “in their capacity as authorities under the Representation of the People Act”. The submission, the ECI said, was based on a communication from the West Bengal CEO on October 22.

“The officers had the authority to file the appeals as per the orders of the Supreme Court, and these matters were not brought to the Commission,” the affidavit said.

As for allegations of 97 voters in Goa who were initially left out of the electoral rolls during SIR, the ECI said house visits were held, and 88 out of the 97 voters have already filled Form 6 for inclusion.

“Their applications have been accepted. Six were out of the country and three were Portuguese passport holders,” the ECI said.

Election Commission of India / Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls