CEC Removal Only Like Supreme Court Judge, ECI Tells Supreme Court On Gyanesh Kumar

The Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi told the Supreme Court that the CEC can be removed only on the same grounds and by the same process that govern the removal of a Supreme Court judge. In a joint affidavit of nearly 250 pages, filed late Monday, October 26, they also said any move to stop the CEC from carrying out his duties would run against the law.

The affidavit was filed amid petitions challenging Kumar’s functioning. Those filings include petitions from the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and other INDIA bloc leaders.

The affidavit sets out the Commission’s legal stand before the apex court. It also explains how the three-member body functions, how it handled decisions on electoral roll revision and why it says media reports should not count as evidence.

Affidavit Argument Points

The Commission rejected claims of internal friction and allegations that the CEC was acting alone.

The ECI told the court that newspaper reports cannot be treated as evidence. It also asked whether petitions built on such reporting could be entertained before the court.

The affidavit said that the Commission had “neither released nor authorised the release of any internal note or file to any news agency”. The document was signed jointly by Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Law And Procedure

The affidavit cited Section 18 of the 2023 law that governs the appointment and service conditions of the CEC and Election Commissioners. The provision was part of the Commission’s answer to the challenge before the court.

The poll panel told the court that when members disagree, decisions are made by majority. It cited that rule in response to allegations of one-sided functioning.

The EC also told the apex court that its counter-affidavit had been approved unanimously by CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners. The statement was intended to show that the response had full backing from the Commission.

Rollout Of SIR

The Commission also defended the Special Intensive Revision. It said the roll-revision exercise was carried out in line with the law.

The EC told the court that three orders linked to the SIR rollout were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission. It identified those orders as having been issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026.

The poll panel also said the law and prescribed Form 6 for voter registration were not amended. That reply came in response to petitions alleging several EC decisions were taken without the two Election Commissioners’ approval, including “changes” to Form 6.

Supreme Court Timeline

The case has already drawn a response from the top court. On October 5, the Supreme Court said it would examine all decisions of the EC and annul those found not to be in accordance with law.

At that stage, the court also issued notices to the Centre and the poll body. The affidavit is now the Commission’s formal response in the case.