India’s Supreme Court to Examine Claims of Unilateral Election Commission Decisions
publishers 109articles 221first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 30 editions
India’s Supreme Court said Tuesday it would examine allegations that Election Commission decisions on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were made without unanimous approval. Chief Justice Surya Kant scheduled the next hearing for Nov. 17, allowing petitioners time to respond to the commission’s affidavit.
The affidavit, approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, said all three members unanimously authorized orders scheduling the revision in states and union territories. It rejected reports of internal divisions and described claims that Form 6, used to register new voters, had been amended as “misleading.” The commission said only an additional declaration displayed with the form had been revised to introduce voter-record “mapping,” while acknowledging that their online presentation could be interpreted as an amendment.
Lawyers for opposition leaders asked the court to preserve internal file notings and communications that they said could establish whether consultation occurred. A lawyer for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen also alleged that the commission altered Form 6 and improperly suggested the Supreme Court had approved it; commission counsel disputed that argument.
The commission further said its ECINet platform does not permit voter-list entries to be added, removed or changed without an electoral registration officer’s order. The petitions followed a September report that Sandhu and Joshi had repeatedly objected to decisions connected with the revision process.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 7 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 582 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 109
- Source articles
- 221
- Given to the writer
- 8, 7 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 582 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →