Two Election Commissioners reportedly raised 14 objections in 10 months over SIR, Form 6, voter deletions, electoral roll database access and West Bengal appeals, even as the ECI says all final decisions were unanimous.
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India is facing renewed scrutiny over the functioning of its three-member constitutional body after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised formal objections at least 14 times in the past 10 months over decisions and processes concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, deletions, appeals and the digital systems used to maintain voter data. The report said the objections were recorded during a period in which the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise expanded across the country and became the subject of intense legal and political debate.
According to the investigation, the objections went to the heart of the electoral roll process. They included concerns over the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database, appeals filed in West Bengal and the functioning and oversight of the Election Commission's IT infrastructure. The two Commissioners reportedly recorded on several occasions that certain decisions or communications had been issued without their knowledge or the requisite approval.
One of the most significant issues relates to Form 6, the application used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. According to the report, a question was added to the form in July requiring new applicants to indicate whether their own name or that of their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. The change was linked to the ongoing revision exercise.
The Indian Express reported that Vivek Joshi had objected to the change in May, arguing that the form could not be altered in that manner without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu reportedly agreed with the objection. On August 13, Sandhu recorded that the change was “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal. The episode has raised a broader question over the extent to which an electoral-roll revision exercise can alter the procedure for registration of new voters without corresponding changes to the statutory framework.
Another major issue concerns who has access to the electoral roll database. Electoral rolls are prepared and maintained through statutory authorities such as Electoral Registration Officers, while the Election Commission's digital platforms are used to manage the data. The Express investigation reported that Joshi had raised concerns over what he described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database and proposed an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials had credentials to make changes.
Sandhu subsequently raised concerns over reports from state-level election officials that they did not have complete access to the ERONet system. The issue is significant because the Election Commission has traditionally stressed the decentralised nature of electoral-roll preparation, with Electoral Registration Officers playing a statutory role at the constituency level.
The controversy becomes particularly significant in West Bengal, where the SIR process involved judicial scrutiny following intervention by the Supreme Court. The Election Commission recently told the Supreme Court that around 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed before tribunals in connection with the state's electoral rolls. Of these, around 22.21 lakh appeals were filed by voters seeking restoration of names, while around 16.10 lakh appeals were against voters whose inclusion had been ordered by judicial officers.
It is the second category that reportedly prompted questions from Sandhu. According to the Express investigation, he sought to know who had authorised the filing of appeals against voters whose names had been included by judicial officers, and who had actually filed those appeals on behalf of the Election Commission. He also recorded that neither he nor Joshi, nor the then Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, had been informed about the basis or process for filing the appeals.
The West Bengal SIR process had already become a major constitutional and administrative issue. Following Supreme Court intervention, around 60 lakh voters whose cases were flagged for examination were scrutinised by judicial officers. About 27.16 lakh names were subsequently deleted, while a large number of appeals were filed against the decisions. The Election Commission later informed the Supreme Court that more than 22 lakh of the deleted voters had appealed for restoration.
The Indian Express investigation also highlighted a case from Goa, where 97 voters reportedly met the requirements for inclusion after examination by Electoral Registration Officers but were left out of the final electoral roll because the necessary software provision was not enabled in time. While the number was small, the incident raised questions about whether technical restrictions in a centralised digital system could prevent a statutory officer's decision from being reflected in the final electoral roll.
The two Commissioners also reportedly approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in the allocation of work relating to the IT infrastructure supporting electoral rolls. According to the investigation, they objected to changes that, in their view, removed an important layer of oversight and said that the changes had been made without their knowledge. The development was followed by a full meeting of the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners on September 9, reportedly the first such full meeting in around four months.
The legal framework governing the Election Commission adds another dimension to the controversy. Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission, while Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, provides that the business of the Commission should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where the members differ, the majority view prevails. The provision also deals with the Commission's procedure and division of work.
The Election Commission, however, has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amount to a breakdown in the functioning of the poll panel. According to the ECI's response reported by several news organisations, all final decisions of the Commission, including decisions relating to SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners. The Commission has maintained that internal observations, disagreements or requests for clarification are part of the deliberative process of a multi-member constitutional body and do not necessarily indicate a division in its final decisions.
The significance of the disclosures therefore lies not simply in the existence of differences of opinion, but in what the reported objections reveal about the processes through which voter registration, deletion, restoration, appeals and electoral-roll databases are administered. The Election Commission maintains that its final decisions were unanimous, while the documents cited in the investigation show that two of its three Commissioners repeatedly recorded concerns over specific procedures.
With millions of electoral-roll appeals still pending in West Bengal and questions continuing over the operation of SIR, the latest disclosures have added a new institutional dimension to an already contentious debate over voter rights, electoral-roll management and the functioning of India's constitutional election authority.
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India is facing renewed scrutiny over the functioning of its three-member constitutional body after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised formal objections at least 14 times in the past 10 months over decisions and processes concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, deletions, appeals and the digital systems used to maintain voter data. The report said the objections were recorded during a period in which the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise expanded across the country and became the subject of intense legal and political debate.
According to the investigation, the objections went to the heart of the electoral roll process. They included concerns over the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database, appeals filed in West Bengal and the functioning and oversight of the Election Commission's IT infrastructure. The two Commissioners reportedly recorded on several occasions that certain decisions or communications had been issued without their knowledge or the requisite approval.
One of the most significant issues relates to Form 6, the application used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. According to the report, a question was added to the form in July requiring new applicants to indicate whether their own name or that of their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. The change was linked to the ongoing revision exercise.
The Indian Express reported that Vivek Joshi had objected to the change in May, arguing that the form could not be altered in that manner without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu reportedly agreed with the objection. On August 13, Sandhu recorded that the change was “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal. The episode has raised a broader question over the extent to which an electoral-roll revision exercise can alter the procedure for registration of new voters without corresponding changes to the statutory framework.
Another major issue concerns who has access to the electoral roll database. Electoral rolls are prepared and maintained through statutory authorities such as Electoral Registration Officers, while the Election Commission's digital platforms are used to manage the data. The Express investigation reported that Joshi had raised concerns over what he described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database and proposed an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials had credentials to make changes.
Sandhu subsequently raised concerns over reports from state-level election officials that they did not have complete access to the ERONet system. The issue is significant because the Election Commission has traditionally stressed the decentralised nature of electoral-roll preparation, with Electoral Registration Officers playing a statutory role at the constituency level.
The controversy becomes particularly significant in West Bengal, where the SIR process involved judicial scrutiny following intervention by the Supreme Court. The Election Commission recently told the Supreme Court that around 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed before tribunals in connection with the state's electoral rolls. Of these, around 22.21 lakh appeals were filed by voters seeking restoration of names, while around 16.10 lakh appeals were against voters whose inclusion had been ordered by judicial officers.
It is the second category that reportedly prompted questions from Sandhu. According to the Express investigation, he sought to know who had authorised the filing of appeals against voters whose names had been included by judicial officers, and who had actually filed those appeals on behalf of the Election Commission. He also recorded that neither he nor Joshi, nor the then Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, had been informed about the basis or process for filing the appeals.
The West Bengal SIR process had already become a major constitutional and administrative issue. Following Supreme Court intervention, around 60 lakh voters whose cases were flagged for examination were scrutinised by judicial officers. About 27.16 lakh names were subsequently deleted, while a large number of appeals were filed against the decisions. The Election Commission later informed the Supreme Court that more than 22 lakh of the deleted voters had appealed for restoration.
The Indian Express investigation also highlighted a case from Goa, where 97 voters reportedly met the requirements for inclusion after examination by Electoral Registration Officers but were left out of the final electoral roll because the necessary software provision was not enabled in time. While the number was small, the incident raised questions about whether technical restrictions in a centralised digital system could prevent a statutory officer's decision from being reflected in the final electoral roll.
The two Commissioners also reportedly approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in the allocation of work relating to the IT infrastructure supporting electoral rolls. According to the investigation, they objected to changes that, in their view, removed an important layer of oversight and said that the changes had been made without their knowledge. The development was followed by a full meeting of the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners on September 9, reportedly the first such full meeting in around four months.
The legal framework governing the Election Commission adds another dimension to the controversy. Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission, while Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, provides that the business of the Commission should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where the members differ, the majority view prevails. The provision also deals with the Commission's procedure and division of work.
The Election Commission, however, has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amount to a breakdown in the functioning of the poll panel. According to the ECI's response reported by several news organisations, all final decisions of the Commission, including decisions relating to SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners. The Commission has maintained that internal observations, disagreements or requests for clarification are part of the deliberative process of a multi-member constitutional body and do not necessarily indicate a division in its final decisions.
The significance of the disclosures therefore lies not simply in the existence of differences of opinion, but in what the reported objections reveal about the processes through which voter registration, deletion, restoration, appeals and electoral-roll databases are administered. The Election Commission maintains that its final decisions were unanimous, while the documents cited in the investigation show that two of its three Commissioners repeatedly recorded concerns over specific procedures.
With millions of electoral-roll appeals still pending in West Bengal and questions continuing over the operation of SIR, the latest disclosures have added a new institutional dimension to an already contentious debate over voter rights, electoral-roll management and the functioning of India's constitutional election authority.
Post a Comment