Did ECI remove its September 26 SIR press note? PIB issues fact-check

New Delhi: The Press Information Bureau (PIB) has rejected a claim that the Election Commission of India (ECI) removed its September 26 press note on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) from its website, saying the document remains available online.

In a fact-check issued on Monday, the PIB shared a link to the ECI website where the September 26 press note can still be accessed. The clarification came after social media posts by Cockroach Janta Party’s Ashutosh Ranka claimed that the Election Commission had taken down the document.

The PIB, the Centre’s nodal agency for information dissemination under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, also urged people to verify claims before sharing them online.

“Do not share unverified videos or claims. Check information against credible, independently verifiable sources before accepting or sharing it,” the government advisory said.

What was in the September 26 ECI press note?

The September 26 communication dealt with several issues linked to the ongoing SIR exercise. It extended the SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra, addressed allegations of differences within the Election Commission and made changes to the procedure concerning additional documents sought through SIR-related notices.

The dispute over whether the press note had been removed comes amid wider scrutiny of the Election Commission and the manner in which its powers are being exercised.

Supreme Court seeks responses from Centre, ECI

On Monday, the Supreme Court also issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission on a petition challenging the manner in which the poll panel’s powers were being exercised.

The petition raised the question of whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar could individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member Election Commission.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, also sought responses from the three Election Commissioners.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the credibility of the Election Commission had been affected and alleged that the CEC was acting contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body.

The Bench said it would first need authenticated information on the allegations. The court also indicated that any decision could be annulled if it was subsequently found to be unlawful.

Singh also urged the court to direct that, until the next hearing, decisions of the Election Commission be taken unanimously.

The Bench, however, said the Commissioners were expected to take unanimous decisions and that where unanimity was not possible, a matter would be decided by a majority.

With IANS inputs