Congress slams EC affidavit, terms it ‘deceptive, deceitful & duplicitous’

Congress’s accusation is that the Election Commission, under CEC Gyanesh Kumar, took major decisions without genuine agreement among all three commissioners. Congress described the EC’s Supreme Court affidavit as “deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous.” The charge matters because election administration depends on lawful procedures and credible institutional decision-making.

Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh said two election commissioners objected on record to serious violations and illegal actions carried out under the CEC’s orders. He said their objections were disregarded, and that they learned about some decisions through news reports rather than being informed directly. Congress therefore called the process unilateral, not unanimous.

Congress also accused the EC of changing its position about Form 6. It said the EC first claimed the Supreme Court had approved a new declaration, then said the declaration was separate and Form 6 had not changed. Ramesh further alleged that ECINET centralized electoral rolls by overriding Electoral Registration Officers.

An affidavit is a written statement of facts that a person or institution formally confirms as true. It is used in legal proceedings because the signer accepts responsibility for the statement’s accuracy. Courts examine affidavits alongside other records, arguments, and evidence when considering a dispute.

An Election Commission affidavit filed in the Supreme Court is especially important because it records the election authority’s official explanation of its actions. Here, the EC used its affidavit to address questions about Special Intensive Revision orders, Form 6, and related procedures. Its wording can shape how the court understands the dispute and the authority’s conduct.

Congress challenged that explanation, calling it deceptive and pointing to alleged contradictions. It said the EC first claimed the Supreme Court had approved a new Form 6 declaration, then changed its position. The affidavit therefore matters both as a formal court document and as the central statement Congress is contesting.

Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed process for reviewing electoral rolls and checking whether voter records should be added, retained, corrected, or removed. Unlike a routine update, an intensive revision involves broader scrutiny of the roll. It matters because electoral rolls determine which citizens can participate in elections.

The article does not describe every SIR procedure or the specific orders involved. It says the Election Commission claimed that major SIR orders were formally approved by all three election commissioners. Congress disputes the significance of that approval, saying two commissioners objected on record to grave violations and illegal actions under the CEC’s orders.

Congress argues that those objections were disregarded and that the commissioners were not properly informed about decisions. Its central point is therefore about the decision-making process surrounding SIR, not merely the revision exercise itself. The dispute raises questions about legality, internal accountability, and confidence in electoral-roll changes.

The Election Commission’s decision-making body described here has three commissioners: the Chief Election Commissioner and two other election commissioners. The article identifies Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC but does not name the other two commissioners. This structure matters because the EC presented major SIR orders as formally approved by all three.

Congress says that approval did not reflect real unanimity. According to Jairam Ramesh, two election commissioners objected on record to grave violations and illegal actions taking place under orders of the CEC. He also said the commissioners were not informed about some decisions and learned of them from news reports.

If accurate, those objections would show a serious disagreement inside the institution rather than a shared position. Congress therefore described the process as unilateral decision-making. The article does not report a separate response from the two commissioners or provide the text of their objections, so their precise legal arguments are not detailed here.

Form 6 is the application used by a person seeking registration as a voter. It matters because access to this form is part of the process through which eligible applicants enter the electoral rolls. The article focuses on how the Election Commission changed or supplemented that process, rather than explaining every field in the form.

Congress said the EC first claimed the Supreme Court had approved a new declaration attached to Form 6. After the Supreme Court allegedly contradicted that claim, Congress said the EC changed its explanation and argued that the declaration was a separate document. Ramesh rejected that distinction because the declaration was mandatory for online submission.

The article does not state the declaration’s exact contents, so its specific requirements cannot be identified from the provided material. The immediate dispute is whether adding a mandatory declaration effectively amended Form 6, and whether the EC accurately described that change in its Supreme Court affidavit.

Centralizing electoral rolls through a system such as ECINET could change who controls voter records and how decisions are reviewed. If local officials lose practical authority, applicants and existing voters may find it harder to understand why a name was added, retained, corrected, or left out. That matters because errors can affect participation in elections.

The article says Congress accused the EC of silently centralizing rolls through ECINET by overriding Electoral Registration Officers. It does not give examples of particular voters being rejected or removed. It also does not describe ECINET’s technical design. The reported concern is therefore about administrative control and whether statutory procedures are being bypassed.

Possible consequences include weaker local accountability, less clarity about whom to approach, and more difficulty challenging mistakes. These are risks, not outcomes established by the article. The forward issue is whether roll changes remain traceable to the legally responsible officers and whether affected voters retain a clear way to seek corrections.

Electoral Registration Officers are the statutory authorities for maintaining electoral rolls because election law assigns them responsibility for registration and roll-related decisions. Their role provides a defined legal point of control. This matters when a voter seeks registration, correction, inclusion, or review of an electoral-roll entry.

A clear statutory authority creates accountability. A voter can know which official made or should review a decision, while courts and election authorities can examine whether the official followed the required process. In the dispute described, Congress alleges that ECINET centralized rolls by overriding these officers. That allegation concerns both authority and procedure.

If a central system displaces the officers’ legally assigned role, responsibility may become harder to trace. Voters could face uncertainty about where to challenge an error, and oversight could become less direct. The article does not describe a specific case, but it says the commissioners themselves placed this alleged centralization on record. The key implication is the need to preserve clear, reviewable responsibility.