The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a 15-point counter affidavit in the Supreme Court, rejecting allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took unilateral decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Commission said the allegations relied on a single media report and lacked supporting official documents.

Congress leaders have protested against the CEC and accused him of running the poll body without consulting other commissioners. The Congress-backed CJP also filed a petition seeking to restrain Kumar from functioning as CEC.

In its response, the ECI said the allegations were based entirely on one unverified news article. It stated that the petitioners had not provided any internal document, file or order to support their claims.

The Commission clarified that all three SIR orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous decisions taken by the full Commission. It also said all three members, including the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, unanimously approved the counter affidavit.

The ECI added that internal files remain confidential and were never released or authorised for release to the media. It said suggestions, queries and observations during internal discussions should not be treated as formal decisions under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

The Commission further warned that leaking or selectively interpreting confidential internal records to damage the institution's reputation would constitute a serious breach.

The ECI stated that no amendment had been made to Form 6, the application form used for voter registration. It said only the Centre could amend the form and clarified that the SIR declaration was a separate document.

The Commission also argued that the petition seeking to restrain the CEC from functioning was not maintainable in law.

The ECI reminded the court that removing the CEC requires a process similar to the removal of a Supreme Court judge. It also compared the allegations to repeated challenges against electronic voting machines (EVMs), which it said the Supreme Court had rejected on several occasions.