Opinion | The Great Witch-Hunt Against ECI: How Facts Were Replaced By Half-Truths

Freedom of speech is a must but free speech cannot come at the expense of getting a free run to slander

Got Question about the News?

The September 23, 2026 “investigation" in a mainstream publication portrayed Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as running a one-man show during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. It claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised at least 14 written objections over 10 months to decisions taken without their knowledge, some labelled “unauthorised and illegal".

These covered Form 6, voter database access, deletions/restorations, and related processes, with escalation to the Cabinet Secretary. The report framed this as an unprecedented rupture, linking it to mass deletions of roughly 13 crore names from draft rolls across multiple States and Union Territories and alleging process violations favouring the ruling dispensation. The scale of draft-roll deletions was promptly presented by the reporter as evidence of partisan exclusion. This, in turn, gave the baseless “vote-chori" rhetoric by Rahul Gandhi, a fresh lease of life.

What Is ‘Logical Discrepancy’ In SIR? Why Supreme Court Wants To Test Its Legality

‘Satyam Shivam Sundaram’: Rahul Gandhi Invokes Lord Shiva Ahead Of SC Hearing On SIR

‘All SIR Orders Were Unanimous, Form 6 Not Amended’: EC Tells Supreme Court On Plea Against CEC

Opinion | Traffic Fines Are Not The Problem; The Process Is

The Election Commission of India (ECI) responded immediately that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberation and that all major decisions of the past year, including on SIR, were unanimous. On October 26, 2026, the ECI filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court (in response to related petitions). Approved unanimously by all three members — CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the two ECs, it directly addressed the web of falsehoods, set off by the random report, by the publication. The joint affidavit stated that the allegations were based on a single newspaper report (not legal evidence), clarified decision-making, confirmed key SIR orders were unanimous, and rejected claims of statutory violations.

The said “investigation" did not uncover any secret illegal orders or any proof that one-man (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) was wrecking the electoral system. The story lazily relied on ordinary internal file notes, queries, observations and technical suggestions that the two other Commissioners (Sandhu & Joshi) supposedly recorded during the massive SIR exercise. The Election Commission however, described these as a normal part of deliberation. Then, under oath before the Supreme Court, all three members of the EC (including the two whose so called “notes" were weaponised by the reporter), jointly affirmed that the three core SIR orders were unanimous, that Form 6 itself was never statutorily amended, that the so-called “disputed work-allocation" order was never implemented, and that individual notes do not constitute the Election Commission decisions under the 2023 Act. These decisive facts were/are conveniently buried in the original report by the reporter.

Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of the key allegations/claims made by the reporter in the said article in the mainstream publication.

Allegation Number 1. Unilateral Decisions by CEC Gyanesh Kumar / Decisions Without Knowledge of the Other Commissioners –The report claimed orders on registration, deletions, Form 6, database access, and related matters were issued without the knowledge or against the advice of Sandhu and Joshi, creating a “one-man autocracy."

Rebuttal: The ECI’s sworn affidavit states that the three key SIR scheduling orders — dated 24 June 2025 (Bihar), 27 October 2025, and 14 May 2026 (further states/UTs) — “were issued in accordance with decisions of the Election Commission of India arrived at unanimously." The affidavit itself was approved by a unanimous decision of all three members. Files circulate first to one EC, then the other, then the CEC; approved decisions are noted on file with signatures. Notes, queries, or suggestions during processing are part of deliberation, not formal decisions under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner........

© News18