Internal Disagreements Emerge Within Election Commission Over SIR

An internal disagreement has emerged within the Election Commission of India (ECI) over several decisions connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. According to an investigation published by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded formal objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months, raising concerns about decisions they said were taken without their knowledge or approval.

The reported objections relate to several aspects of the electoral-roll revision process, including the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, access to voter databases, changes to statutory voter forms and the management of the Election Commission’s digital systems. The report says the objections were recorded in official communications and were also shared with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

One of the major issues concerns Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. According to The Indian Express, a new declaration related to the SIR electoral roll was added to Form 6 on the ECINet portal. Applicants were asked whether their name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an electoral roll from the previous SIR. Although the section was reportedly not marked mandatory, applicants could not proceed without answering it.

The report states that Vivek Joshi raised an objection in May 2026, arguing that Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and therefore could not be altered without the required amendment to the rules. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently agreed with this position on file, according to the investigation. Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its removal. These statements are reported from internal records examined by The Indian Express and represent the views recorded by the two commissioners.

Another significant issue concerns access to the electoral-roll database. The Election Commission’s electoral-roll system is designed around statutory authorities at the constituency level, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) who are responsible for maintaining and updating voter records. According to the investigation, Joshi raised concerns in May about what he described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database.

Joshi reportedly proposed an audit to ensure that only the relevant statutory authorities had the credentials necessary to make changes to voter records. Sandhu later raised similar concerns, citing reports that some state-level election officials did not have what he considered proper and complete access to the ERONet system.

The concerns also extend to ECINet, the Election Commission’s centralised digital platform that brings together multiple election-related applications and portals. According to The Indian Express, the two commissioners questioned whether changes in access and work allocation could reduce the role of officials responsible for electoral-roll management at the state and constituency levels.

The investigation further reports that Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan over changes in work allocation that they believed could further concentrate control over the Election Commission’s information-technology systems. Their concerns reportedly focused on the oversight and administration of the digital infrastructure supporting electoral rolls.

Another issue raised in the report relates to West Bengal’s SIR process and appeals against electoral-roll decisions. The Election Commission had previously informed the Supreme Court about appeals involving voters whose names had been deleted or retained during the revision process. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu questioned who had authorised certain appeals filed against decisions that had restored or included voters. He also sought clarification about who had filed the appeals on behalf of the Election Commission.

The report says the objections touch several areas that are central to the management of electoral rolls, including new voter registration, deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals, database access and the security of electoral-roll information. Because these functions directly concern the preparation and maintenance of voter lists, the reported disagreements have attracted significant attention.

The reported internal objections come against the backdrop of the nationwide expansion of the SIR exercise. The revision process began in Bihar in 2025 and has subsequently been undertaken in other states and Union Territories. The exercise is intended to review and update electoral rolls, including identifying voters whose records require verification or whose entries may need to be corrected or removed under the applicable procedures.

The issue has also generated political reactions. Following the publication of the Indian Express investigation, opposition parties criticised the Election Commission and raised questions about its internal functioning. Those political reactions are separate from the underlying documentary claims in the investigation and should be understood as political responses to the reported findings, rather than independent confirmation of the allegations.

The Election Commission’s position is important in assessing the controversy. The Indian Express reported that it sent questions to the Commission concerning the objections raised by the two commissioners, including whether their concerns had been addressed and whether the issues were discussed at a September 9 meeting. According to the report, the Commission had not responded to those questions at the time of publication.

The reported disagreements therefore raise broader questions about decision-making, statutory authority, access to electoral databases and oversight within the Election Commission. However, the internal objections reported by the newspaper should not themselves be treated as judicial findings or definitive determinations that the Election Commission violated election law.

The controversy is developing alongside ongoing legal scrutiny of the SIR process in different parts of the country. Courts, including the Supreme Court, are examining specific legal and procedural issues related to electoral-roll revision. The outcome of those proceedings, along with any formal response from the Election Commission, will provide further information about the legal and administrative questions raised around the SIR exercise.

For voters, the central issue remains the accuracy, transparency and proper administration of electoral rolls. The reported objections by two Election Commissioners have brought internal decision-making within the poll panel into public focus, particularly regarding how voter records are added, removed, updated and maintained through the Commission’s digital systems.