ECI rejects rift narrative, says all decisions taken unanimously amid reported dissent
New Delhi, Sep 23 (UNI) The Election Commission of India on Wednesday rejected suggestions of an internal rupture within the poll panel, saying written objections, observations and technical suggestions by individual Election Commissioners were part of its normal functioning and that all decisions taken by the Commission over the past year, including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were unanimous.
The clarification came hours after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected on record at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the management and security of electoral-roll databases. The report said some of the two commissioners' objections described measures as "unauthorised" and "illegal" and raised concerns over the increasing centralisation of electoral-roll systems at the Commission's headquarters in Delhi.
In a press note issued on Wednesday, the ECI said it is a constitutional body functioning under Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. It stressed that the Commission operates as a multi-member constitutional body and that "written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices" intended to ensure transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour. "All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission," it said, adding that all official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry legal sanction and follow statutory procedures under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The Commission said operational queries or inputs raised by its members during the drafting stage were part of standard administrative practice and were aimed at safeguarding voters' rights and improving electoral processes. "Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution," it said, adding that such views form part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken.
The ECI also sought to counter the impression that the reported objections represented a sustained division within the three-member Commission. It said not only the three Commissioners but every officer of the Commission was authorised to offer suggestions for improving the electoral system. "Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture," the Commission said.
It pointed to what it described as numerous decisions and reforms undertaken in recent months, including around 40 new initiatives and electoral-roll revisions, including SIR, across the country. According to the ECI, "all these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year." The Commission also cited the conduct of major elections in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal, along with election-related exercises during the period, as evidence of the scale of work undertaken collectively by the three-member body.
It said these exercises involved extensive administrative and operational machinery and required numerous approvals and instructions from the Commission. The ECI's statement was issued in response to growing political scrutiny following the Indian Express investigation, which said Sandhu and Joshi had repeatedly raised concerns over decisions touching the core functions of the electoral authority. According to the report, the objections related to the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, appeals concerning voters removed during the SIR process and the custody and security of electoral-roll data.
One of the reported areas of disagreement concerned Form 6, the statutory form used by citizens seeking registration as voters. The Indian Express reported that a new declaration added to the form on the ECINet platform asked first-time applicants to indicate whether their name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll from the previous SIR held in the early 2000s. According to the report, Joshi had objected in May that Form 6 could not be altered without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, while Sandhu subsequently described the change as "unauthorised and illegal" and called for its removal.
The ECI's press note did not specifically address the reported Form 6 objections but maintained that all its actions had been undertaken in accordance with law and the Commission's instructions. Another major issue highlighted by the Indian Express investigation was the control and accessibility of electoral-roll databases. The newspaper reported that Joshi had raised concerns over the "gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database" and suggested an audit to ensure that only the statutory authorities responsible for electoral rolls had credentials to make changes.
Sandhu, according to the report, subsequently raised concerns over state-level officials allegedly not having complete access to the ERONet system and questioned the authority of officials in the ECI's information-technology division to restrict access. The Commission, however, defended its digital infrastructure, saying its platforms, including ECINet, operate under "strict data security protocols" designed to prevent unauthorised tampering or manipulation. It said IT security checks and audit controls were standard cybersecurity measures applicable to national databases.
The ECI further asserted that statutory authorities such as Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continue to exercise their powers under the law in matters relating to voter registration and deletion. The issue of centralised technological control had also figured prominently in the report by The Indian Express, which said Sandhu and Joshi had approached Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan over changes in the allocation of administrative and IT responsibilities relating to the electoral-roll systems. The report said the two commissioners were concerned that the changes could further concentrate control over the IT infrastructure at the Commission's headquarters.
The newspaper also reported that in Goa, 97 voters who had reportedly fulfilled the requirements laid down by the Electoral Registration Officer could not have the decisions entered into the system because of software restrictions. The incident was cited in the investigation as an example of concerns over whether technological controls could override decisions taken by statutory officials at the state and constituency level. The ECI's defence comes against the backdrop of an increasingly contentious SIR exercise.
The Indian Express reported that the revision, which began in Bihar in June 2025, had resulted in more than 13 crore names being struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 States and union Territories. The scale of the deletions has triggered political controversy and judicial scrutiny over the safeguards governing inclusion and exclusion from electoral rolls. The Commission, however, said the focus on a limited number of internal observations over a 10-month period failed to capture the broader institutional picture. It maintained that the three-member body had collectively taken decisions covering electoral-roll revision, SIR and other electoral reforms.
The ECI also sought to underline the distinction between internal deliberation and final institutional decisions. "Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution," it said, adding that such inputs are intended to improve the electoral process before a final decision is taken. The controversy has nevertheless brought renewed attention to the legal framework governing decision-making within the Election Commission.
The Indian Express reported that the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and that where the CEC and Election Commissioners differ, the matter is decided according to the majority view. The Opposition has interpreted the reported objections differently, with Congress president and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge saying the disclosures vindicated long-standing concerns over the functioning of the poll panel and demanding accountability from CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Other Opposition parties have also called for greater transparency and action on the reported objections. The ECI's latest statement, however, maintains that there has been no breakdown in its collective functioning. It said the Commission remained committed to carrying out its constitutional responsibilities and described the internal notes and observations as part of the checks and balances inherent in a multi-member institution. "The Election Commission of India remains fully committed to executing its constitutional duties with complete integrity," the Commission said, stressing its role in "advancing our democracy".
The statement thus sets out the ECI's position that the existence of differing internal observations should not be construed as evidence that final decisions were taken without collective approval. The Indian Express investigation, meanwhile, has placed the substance and frequency of those objections at the centre of a wider debate over transparency, institutional decision-making, electoral-roll management and the safeguards surrounding the SIR exercise.
UNI SKA AAB
