The EC Affidavit CoverUp In Supreme Court? Some Answers, Many Questions| Gyanesh #gyaneshkumar #cec

The EC Affidavit CoverUp In Supreme Court? Some Answers, Many Questions| Gyanesh #form6 #GyaneshKumar #SupremeCourt #ElectionCommission #VoterList #IndianPolitics #HindiNews #SupremeCourtNews #SanketUpadhyay #doublecheck #cec This video, presented by Sanket Upadhyay on his channel DoubleCheck, covers a significant legal development in the Supreme Court of India regarding the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar. The discussion focuses on a hearing held on October 27, 2026. Key Issues and Arguments: Special Intensive Revision (SIR): The core of the legal challenge stems from reports (notably by the Indian Express) alleging that the ECI made several major decisions unilaterally, often ignoring objections raised by other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek जोशी (Vivek Joshi) (6:23 - 7:54). Form 6 Controversy: There was significant controversy surrounding Form 6, used for voter registration. Petitioners argued that the ECI modified the form without legal authority and allegedly claimed Supreme Court approval for these changes, which the CJI disputed in a previous hearing (13:50 - 15:40). ECI's Counter Affidavit: The ECI filed a counter-affidavit claiming all major decisions were taken unanimously by all three commissioners. It asserted that individual "Commissioner notes" were mere suggestions, not formal decisions (10:10 - 11:30). Furthermore, the ECI stated that Form 6 was not formally amended, despite appearance of changes (15:47 - 16:36). Supreme Court Observations: The court has not suspended CEC Gyanesh Kumar, rejecting the immediate demand to remove him (17:24 - 18:46). The court granted the petitioners 10 days to file a rejoinder to the ECI's affidavit (28:45 - 29:10). The matter is tentatively listed for the next hearing on November 17, 2026 (29:24). Sanket Upadhyay emphasizes that the Supreme Court has maintained its stance to examine the decision-making process to see if it aligned with the law. The petitioners are demanding access to the internal file notations to verify if decisions were truly unanimous (26:12 - 26:48).