The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear today a writ petition challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) amid allegations concerning internal communications and decision-making within the poll body.
In its counter affidavit filed on October 26, the ECI has denied the allegations and submitted that the petition is based primarily on a newspaper report, without the petitioner independently verifying the factual claims with the respondents.
The Commission has contended that suggestions, observations, queries and differing views expressed by officials in the chain of command are part of the ordinary decision-making process. It has submitted that matters placed before the Commission are considered collectively, with decisions taken 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 ECI has further explained that its internal administrative and non-quasi-judicial decisions may be communicated through the Secretariat under delegated powers. According to the affidavit, decisions requiring the Commission’s approval are considered by the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners, recorded in official files and implemented through the Secretariat.
The Commission has also opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the reliefs sought against the Chief Election Commissioner are legally untenable and that the petition does not establish grounds for extraordinary relief under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that Form 6, prescribed for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, has not been amended through its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders. However, the Commission acknowledged that displaying the separate SIR declaration alongside Form 6 on its online platform could have created the impression that the statutory form had been modified.
The ECI stated that the online application process was subsequently divided into two separate parts Form 6 and the SIR declaration to distinguish between the statutory application form and the additional declaration required for the revision exercise.
The matter is listed before the Supreme Court today.