The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was aware of all developments and would examine all aspects of the allegations against the Election Commission, as it heard a batch of petitions questioning the poll body's functioning and alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls."We know everything, we will examine," Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said when senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, urged the court to direct the preservation of file notings and internal communications to establish whether key decisions were taken unanimously or unilaterally.The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, adjourned the hearing and granted the petitioners 10 days to file their rejoinder to the counter-affidavit submitted by the Election Commission on Monday. The matter was tentatively listed for further hearing on November 17.The petitions challenge the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and question whether the Commission's decisions, including those related to the SIR exercise, were taken in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the poll body.

During the hearing, Singhvi argued that the dispute centred on the decision-making process within the Election Commission, particularly whether the decisions concerning the electoral roll revision exercise had been taken after consultation among the commissioners."This whole issue depends on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decision was unanimous or not unanimous. Let file notings, etc be preserved," Singhvi told the bench.

Responding to the submission, CJI Surya Kant said the court was aware of the developments and would examine the issues raised before it.The preservation of internal records is significant to the petitioners' case, as they have alleged that several crucial decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the Commission despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.The allegations have emerged against the backdrop of a report by The Indian Express, which claimed that at least 14 important decisions related to the SIR exercise were taken despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, argued that the Election Commission's counter-affidavit supported the petitioners' submissions.She alleged that the ECI had tampered with Form 6, which is used for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and had issued a press release claiming that the Supreme Court had approved the form.Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, rejected the submission and described it as "rhetoric" intended for an audience outside the courtroom.The exchange came as the court examined allegations concerning the Commission's decision-making process and the conduct of the SIR exercise. The ECI has denied the charge of unilateral decision-making, maintaining in its affidavit that all decisions relating to the revision exercise were taken unanimously.The Commission has also denied that Form 6 was amended.On Monday, in its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner had taken decisions unilaterally.

It maintained that decisions concerning the SIR exercise were unanimous.The Commission also opposed the plea seeking to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner, arguing that such a request was not maintainable under Article 324(5) of the Constitution.The provision stipulates that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.The petitioners, however, have questioned whether the Commission's functioning conforms to the constitutional framework under Article 324 and the statutory requirements governing its decision-making.The court did not pass any interim direction during Tuesday's hearing and posted the matter on November 17 for further hearing.- Ends