Election Commission tells Supreme Court all three SIR orders were unanimous

The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court on Monday, October 26, that all three orders governing the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners, rejecting allegations that the CEC decided unilaterally (WION, The Economic Times, Prameya News). The counter-affidavit, filed in response to petitions challenging the Commission's functioning and decision-making, also said Form 6, used to enrol voters, was not amended (Mint, DNA India).

What every report agrees on

Every report describes a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on October 26 in which the Commission said the SIR orders carried the consent of all three members and denied unilateral decision-making by the CEC (WION, The Economic Times, Prameya News, Mint). The Commission said the petition rested entirely on a single newspaper report and was not maintainable (DNA India, Scroll.in), and that the exercise was carried out in accordance with the law (Mint). The affidavit was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu in a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh and responds to an Indian Express investigation reporting objections from Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi; the Commission denied leaking internal files and said a disputed office order from July 2026 was never implemented (Organiser). India Today reports the Commission's position that suggestions, observations and queries raised in internal discussions do not amount to formal decisions, and that it sought permission to file a detailed point-by-point reply, its response having been brief because of the Dussehra vacation (India Today).

How the left-leaning press told it

The Hindu, Hindustan Times and Scroll.in: Removal protections and opposition rebuttal

Left-leaning outlets carried the affidavit but led on what surrounds it. The Hindu, rated centre-left, led with the joint affidavit of nearly 250 pages stating that a CEC cannot be removed except in the manner applicable to a Supreme Court judge and that restraining the CEC's functioning would be contrary to law (The Hindu). Hindustan Times, rated centre-left, led with the Congress response that unanimity does not establish whether the decisions complied with the rules (Hindustan Times), and Scroll.in, rated centre-left, reported the unanimity claim alongside the Commission's maintainability objection that the petition rested on one newspaper report (Scroll.in).

How the right-leaning press told it

India Today and The Economic Times: Poll body rejects unilateral-action charge

Outlets rated centre-right led with the Commission's denial itself. India Today reported that the ECI told the Supreme Court all three SIR orders were unanimous and denied that Gyanesh Kumar acted alone, adding the Commission's point that internal suggestions and queries are not formal decisions and that it sought to file a fuller reply (India Today). The Economic Times framed it the same way, reporting that the Commission rejected allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally despite objections from the other two Commissioners (The Economic Times).

How the centre told it

Mint and WION: SIR conducted in accordance with law

Centre-rated outlets reported the affidavit as a defence of the SIR process. Mint said the Commission defended the revision as carried out in accordance with the law and stated that all three members approved the governing orders and that Form 6 was not amended (Mint). WION reported the same denial of unilateral decision-making in response to petitions challenging the CEC (WION).

What the record shows

The documentary record in these reports is the counter-affidavit itself: a joint filing of close to 250 pages lodged late on October 26 by the Commission, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners (The Hindu), filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu in a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh (Organiser). It asserts unanimity on the three SIR orders issued between 2025 and 2026 (Prameya News), states that Form 6 was not amended (The Economic Times, Mint), denies the leaking of internal files, says a disputed office order from July 2026 was never implemented (Organiser), and argues that the petition is not maintainable because it rests on a single newspaper report (DNA India, Scroll.in). Against it stands an Indian Express investigation reporting objections by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, which the affidavit was written to answer (Organiser), and the Commission's own distinction between internal suggestions and formal decisions (India Today). Congress MP Imran Masood dismissed the affidavit and urged the Supreme Court to examine the Commission's records, raising deletions from voter lists and Form 6 (Asianet Newsable); the Congress said unanimity does not show the rules were followed (Hindustan Times). None of the reports describes the court examining the internal files, and no report independently verifies the unanimity claim.

Drafted by the Alethman engine from 11 independent reports, and checked by an editor before publication. An outlet's side comes from published media-bias ratings (Media Bias/Fact Check, AllSides) or documented ownership, named under the coverage bar; Alethman does not rate outlets itself.