An Indian Express investigation has reported repeated objections within the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded concerns at least 14 times over 10 months, according to correspondence reviewed by the newspaper. The report prompted calls for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s removal, while the BJP called the exchanges evidence of democratic deliberation.
The dispute turns on a distinction. The Express reports written objections, but does not present them as proof that an election result was altered. The Election Commission says its decisions were approved by all three members and that differing views during drafting are normal.
What did the investigation find?
The Express said the two commissioners questioned decisions and communications issued without their knowledge. Their concerns covered registration of new voters, deletions and restorations, appeals against voters included by judicial officers, and control of the electoral-roll database. In May, Joshi warned against changing Form 6 without amending the rules, the report said. Sandhu later called the added question about an applicant’s or relatives’ presence in an earlier SIR roll “unauthorised and illegal”.
The newspaper also reported concerns that state electoral officials lacked full access to ERONET, the system used to manage rolls. Joshi proposed an audit of who could change the voter database. In Goa, electoral registration officers found 97 flagged voters eligible, but the software lacked a rollback option to restore them before the final roll, the Express reported.
The ERONET supports the statutory electoral registration officers who decide roll entries. ECINet is a broader platform that now incorporates electoral-roll functions. A software flag for a possible discrepancy does not itself make a voter ineligible.
What does the Commission say?
The Commission said differing views and operational queries are normal in its deliberations. It said its orders have legal sanction, follow statutory procedures, and were approved by all three commissioners. The Express said it sent questions to the Commission and both commissioners before publication but received no response to those questions. Section 18 of the law governing the commissioners says Commission business should be transacted unanimously as far as possible. Where members differ on a matter, the majority view decides it.
How have political parties responded?
BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said disagreement in official discussions showed the Commission functioning democratically, not dictatorially. He cited the Commission’s response and accused opposition parties of misrepresenting the exchanges. DMK president M K Stalin called for Kumar’s resignation, a fair inquiry and a halt to the SIR.He alleged political interference, but the investigation itself does not establish that allegation. RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav demanded fresh polls in Bihar and West Bengal, alleging rigging.
AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi questioned the legality of decisions if a majority of commissioners had been unaware of them. In Maharashtra, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray demanded Kumar’s removal and fresh polls in several states. NCP (SP) called for an all-party meeting, while Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan urged the Supreme Court to examine the Commission’s records.
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal called for Kumar’s suspension, an FIR and a halt to work on finalising voter lists. He argued that decisions made without the Commission’s majority could not stand, a legal claim that has not been established by a court yet. The Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi also attacked the Commission, AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal demanded for Kumar’s arrest and cancellation of the SIR, and TMC MP Derek O’Brien’s called to revive a motion for the CEC’s removal.
What remains unresolved?
The public dispute is not settled by either the objections or the Commission’s general assurance. The specific questions concern the approval of communications and appeals, the commissioners’ final decisions, and electoral registration officers’ access to the database. Claims that elections were rigged or must be rerun remain political demands, not established findings.