ECI affidavit to Court has unresolved questions, unbroken silences

Going ahead, the persistence of these questions could return to haunt an institution whose credibility is pivotal for safeguarding the right to vote and nourishing people's trust in free and fair elections.

The Court, which has a distinguished record of upholding Article 324 that secures the ECI’s powers, must now nudge it towards a course correction. That requires, first, fuller transparency.

3 min readOct 28, 2026 06:00 AM IST First published on: Oct 28, 2026 at 06:00 AM IST

The affidavit that the Election Commission of India has filed before the Supreme Court is underwhelming, raises more questions than it answers. It comes in response to a petition in the wake of this newspaper’s investigation into the ECI’s functioning during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The investigation highlighted the erosion of internal checks and balances in the three-member constitutional body that underwrites democracy’s fundamental compact. It pointed to its shrinking, on the watch of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, into a one-man show. Now, the affidavit projects an impression of unanimity, and justifies the Commission’s decision-making processes. But it does so while blurring important distinctions and is riddled with persisting silences. The objections recorded by the two ECs, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, 14 in 10 months, were part of the consultative process, it says — this papers over the fact that most of them were about orders already issued and decisions taken without keeping the two ECs informed. Even where the ECI makes corrections, it does not do so fully. It rolls back controversial changes made to Form 6 for first-time voters online, and sets up a committee that includes experts to review ECINet’s compliance with the law. It does so, however, without acknowledging the mistake, or holding anyone accountable.

Going ahead, the persistence of unresolved questions could return to haunt an institution whose credibility is pivotal for safeguarding the right to vote and nourishing people’s trust in free and fair elections. In Goa, for instance, 88 of the 97 voters who were left out of the final rolls have subsequently applied through Form 6. But why did the software block, in February, the Electoral Registration Officers’ decisions to reverse the deletions? The affidavit has no answer. It addresses a question in West Bengal, but leaves others hanging — the appeals against orders restoring voters to the electoral roll were filed by the office of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer, it says. But why were Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi kept in the dark when they asked about this matter earlier, and how did an exercise of this scale proceed, in the name of the Commission, with this level of opacity — again, there are no answers in the affidavit.

The SIR process continues to stumble. In West Bengal, a report in this newspaper has also revealed, judges of tribunals appointed by the Court to decide appeals of those affected by the SIR have pointed out that the ECI requirement for Aadhaar authentication in its portal is coming in their way. Their problem, among others, needs to be addressed by an ECI that listens, one that gives primacy to due process in its conduct vis-à-vis other players and institutions, and internally. The affidavit is an imperfect start. The Court, which has a distinguished record of upholding Article 324 that secures the ECI’s powers, must now nudge it towards a course correction. That requires, first, fuller transparency.