Election Commission defends decisions in Supreme Court affidavit but stays silent on member consultations

The Election Commission of India has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its decisions as unanimous and collective, while remaining silent on why two of its members were not informed before major actions were taken. A petition had been filed following an investigation that revealed 14 notes recorded over 10 months by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, in which they stated they had learned of decisions, orders, and cases only after they occurred.

Form 6 and ECINet Disputes

In May, Joshi recorded that Form 6 for voter registration could not be altered without amending the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960, and Sandhu agreed. The online form was nonetheless changed in July, with Sandhu learning of it from a newspaper report and calling the inserted declaration unauthorised and illegal. The affidavit acknowledges the online display could be seen as an amendment and states the ER Division decided on October 21 to separate the statutory form from the declaration, though it does not name who approved the July implementation. Regarding ECINet, the affidavit outlines new review arrangements through a committee including experts from IIT Mumbai and IISc Bengaluru. This mirrors a May proposal by Joshi that Sandhu endorsed, though the affidavit presents the committee as a September decision and does not mention the earlier notes.

Goa, West Bengal, and Administration

In Goa, the affidavit notes 88 of 97 voters left off the final roll have applied through Form 6, but does not explain why software blocked reversals in February despite requests and a note from a Deputy Election Commissioner. In West Bengal, the affidavit states appeals restoring voters were filed by officers in the state Chief Electoral Officer's office under Supreme Court orders. However, notes showed both Joshi and Sandhu found the state CEO lacked information on the matter, and the affidavit does not reconcile this or explain how lakhs of appeals proceeded without the Commission knowing. Regarding a July order redistributing work issued by a senior officer without the Commission, the affidavit confirms it was not implemented after a joint direction by the two Commissioners, but does not explain why it was issued or why a file was withheld from Joshi.

Context

The Supreme Court oversees constitutional bodies like the Election Commission to ensure proper governance and adherence to electoral laws during the conduct of elections. Affidavits submitted by public institutions represent their formal legal stance when answering petitions filed by citizens or watchdogs.