ECI’s Electoral Roll Revision Defence: Article 324, CEC Safeguards and Voter Due Process

What the ECI has submitted—and what remains contested

The ECI states that the SIR scheduling orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026 were unanimously approved. It argues that individual commissioners’ questions, observations or suggestions during deliberations cannot automatically be treated as the Commission’s final position.

The affidavit also acknowledges that the Election Commissioners separately wrote to the Cabinet Secretary about an internal work-allocation order issued on July 28, 2026. According to the Commission, that order was never implemented. This distinction matters: disagreement during deliberation and a legally operative institutional decision are different categories.

The supplied reports do not establish that the Supreme Court has accepted the ECI’s defence. Claims about unanimity, the legality of additional declarations and the adequacy of safeguards must remain attributed to the Commission until adjudicated.

• The ECI disputes the evidentiary value of media reports alleging unilateral functioning.
• A unanimous affidavit establishes the Commission’s stated litigation position; it does not by itself resolve every procedural allegation.
• The central legal question is whether institutional decisions and their implementation comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Article 324: Security of tenure is not immunity from review

Article 324(5) protects the CEC from removal except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Read with Article 124(4), this requires a presidential removal order following an address by each House of Parliament supported by the constitutionally prescribed special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The CEC’s conditions of service cannot be varied to the incumbent’s disadvantage after appointment.

Other Election Commissioners do not enjoy the identical judge-like removal mechanism: Article 324(5) provides that they cannot be removed except on the CEC’s recommendation. This is a safeguard against arbitrary executive removal, but it is constitutionally distinct from the CEC’s protection.

The affidavit argues that restraining the CEC’s functioning would be contrary to law. Analytically, however, removal from office must be distinguished from judicial review of a particular decision or procedure. Security of tenure protects institutional independence; it does not place electoral administration beyond constitutional scrutiny.

• Article 324 is a source of electoral authority, not a licence to override enacted law.
• The CEC’s stronger tenure protection does not confer unilateral supremacy over a multi-member Commission.
• A judicial remedy must be assessed according to its legal basis and effect, rather than automatically equated with removal.

Collective decisions and digital accountability

Section 18 of the 2023 Act provides for unanimity as far as possible and majority decision-making when opinions differ. The affidavit describes files moving to one Election Commissioner, then the other and finally the CEC, with approved decisions recorded and signed before implementation by the Secretariat. In urgent situations, it says electronic approvals are obtained and subsequently recorded.

The Commission also states that ECINet is an enabling tool and that no electoral roll entry is added, deleted or modified without an Electoral Registration Officer’s order. The legal test is therefore not merely whether a portal operates efficiently, but whether it preserves the statutory officer’s access, discretion and accountability.

• Recorded dissent is compatible with lawful institutional decision-making; unanimity is not mandatory in every case.
• Urgent electronic approvals should leave a verifiable record of participation and authorisation.
• Internal work allocation must not displace powers vested by law in Electoral Registration Officers.
• Technical administrators should implement lawful decisions, not independently determine electoral eligibility.

Form 6 and mapping: Assistance or an additional barrier?

The ECI denies amending statutory Form 6 and says that only the additional declaration used during SIR was modified. It acknowledges that the declaration’s presentation on the online system could have created the impression that Form 6 itself had been amended. Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, and its amendment belongs to the Central Government’s statutory rule-making process.

According to the affidavit, mapping connects an applicant’s details with entries relating to the applicant, parents or grandparents in earlier SIR records. The ECI describes this as a means of dispensing with further verification documents where the linkage is available. It says the additional declaration applies to SIR, rather than every routine electoral roll update.

The relevant legal distinction is between facilitating proof of existing eligibility and creating a new substantive qualification for registration. Calling a document an annexure does not, by itself, settle its legality: its authority, practical burden and consequences for applicants must also be examined.

• Inability to establish a historical family linkage should not automatically be equated with ineligibility.
• Applicants need clear information about alternative routes to establish their entitlement.
• Online presentation should distinguish the statutory form from supplementary requirements.

Due process against wrongful voter exclusion

The Representation of the People Act, 1950 provides for revision and correction of rolls, inclusion of eligible persons and appeals. Section 22 requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard before specified adverse action, including deletion on the ground that a person has ceased to be ordinarily resident or is otherwise not entitled to registration. Temporary absence does not, by itself, terminate ordinary residence.

The ECI acknowledges that officers of the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer filed 16.10 lakh appeals against inclusions, stating that they acted as statutory authorities under Supreme Court orders. These are appeals against inclusion, not an established count of deletions or ineligible voters.

For Goa, the ECI says that 88 of the 97 allegedly omitted voters submitted Form 6 and their applications were accepted. It describes the remaining voters as being abroad or holding Portuguese passports. These categories require legally distinct assessments: absence concerns residence, while foreign citizenship concerns eligibility. Corrective registration is important, but does not by itself establish that the initial exclusion followed due process.

• Adverse decisions should rest on individual verification rather than an assumption based on missing documents or failed mapping.
• Notice and a meaningful hearing must precede adverse action wherever required by law.
• Reasoned orders and accessible appeals are essential to make remedies effective.
• Roll accuracy requires both removal of ineligible entries and protection of eligible electors.