Your PEEK Into The Day: 5 Stories That Deserve The Front Page
Peek TV | October 28, 2026
SIR, Yes, SIR: Is The ECI Speaking In One Voice, Or Just The One That Counts?
The Fact: The Election Commission of India filed a 15-point counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court, rejecting the opposition’s charges against the CEC. It insists that the Commission’s major decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously. The poll body rejected allegations of irregularities and questioned the basis of a petition that challenged its decision-making process. The response came after a plea filed in the apex court, which sought the suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyansh Kumar, and challenged his alleged unilateral decision-making powers. In the counter-affidavit, the ECI also argued that notes, queries and suggestions recorded by individual commissioners during file processing do not constitute formal decisions of the Commission. It denied the amendment of Form 6 and said that only the Centre can amend it, while the SIR declaration is a separate document.
The Context: The affidavit follows a report by The Indian Express published on September 23, which said that ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months over decisions taken related to the SIR of the electoral rolls and that these decisions were taken without their knowledge or approval. The concerns raised in the report were related to the unanimity with which the decisions were taken, the process of deletion and restoration of voters, the functioning of the ECINet platform, whether the EROs had adequate access to the online portal, and the alleged illegal changes made to Form 6.
The Peek Insight: The affidavit filed by the ECI left some major questions unanswered; the main point being that most of the objections recorded by ECs Sandhu and Joshi were written after the decisions were already taken without their knowledge. The issue the report raised was not whether the Commission eventually approved the decisions; it was whether two of its members were being consulted and informed about actions carried out in the Commission’s name. The affidavit fails to clarify why changes were made to the online version of Form 6 despite the objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi. The ECI has outlined explanations and corrective measures, including separating Form 6 from the additional SIR declaration and reviewing ECINet’s compliance with the law. However, these measures do not fully address the questions raised by the commissioners’ own records.
