The Election Commission defended the electoral roll revision before the Supreme Court. It maintained that all orders were unanimous and voter enrolment safeguards remain available.

Asserting that all decisions are unanimous, the Commission said the petitions on the matter filed in the top court are based solely on newspaper reports and should be dismissed.

The Election Commission defended the SIR before the Supreme Court and sought dismissal of petitions. It argued that unanimous approvals and statutory safeguards countered claims against the poll process.

The Election Commission defended the Special Intensive Revision before the Supreme Court. Its affidavit asserted unanimous approval, statutory authority and no alteration to Form 6.

The Commission also clarified that suggestions, observations and queries raised by its members during internal discussions do not constitute formal decisions. It said the response was brief because of the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to file a detailed, point-by-point reply.

The ECI on Oct 26 told Supreme Court all SIR decisions relating to the SIR of electoral rolls were taken unanimously by its three members.

On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the other two ECs.

On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the other two ECs.

New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar had taken unilateral