Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, reportedly raised 14 formal objections in 10 months over voter registration, electoral roll access, Form 6 changes and SIR-related appeals, while the ECI says all decisions were unanimous.
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India has come under renewed scrutiny after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months on decisions and processes concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, data access and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. According to the report, the objections included concerns over changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database, the filing of appeals in West Bengal and the functioning of the Election Commission's information technology systems. The report said the two Election Commissioners had, on several occasions, recorded that decisions or communications had been issued without their knowledge or requisite approval.
One of the most significant issues concerns Form 6, the application form used by new voters to seek inclusion in the electoral roll. According to The Indian Express, a new declaration linked first-time voter applications to the electoral roll of the last SIR held in the early 2000s. Applicants were asked whether their own name or that of a parent or grandparent appeared in the earlier electoral roll. The report said Vivek Joshi had raised concerns in May over changing the form without an amendment to the relevant rules, while Sandhu agreed with the objection. On August 13, Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.
Another major concern raised by the two Commissioners related to access to the electoral roll database. Electoral rolls are prepared at the constituency level under Electoral Registration Officers, while digital systems such as ERONet and ECINet are used to manage the data. The Indian Express report said Joshi had warned of a “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database and proposed an audit to ensure that only the concerned statutory authorities had credentials to make changes. Sandhu subsequently raised concerns over reports from state-level election officials that they did not have proper and complete access to the ERONet system.
The issue has particular significance in West Bengal, where the SIR process has been the subject of extensive legal and political scrutiny. According to the report, the Election Commission recently informed the Supreme Court that around 38 lakh appeals were pending before tribunals in the state. Of these, about 22.21 lakh appeals were filed by electors whose names had been deleted and who sought restoration, while around 16.10 lakh appeals sought deletion of names that had been included by judicial officers. Sandhu reportedly questioned who had authorised the latter appeals to be filed on behalf of the Election Commission and who had actually filed them, saying that neither he nor Joshi nor the current Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or process.
The Indian Express investigation also highlighted an incident in Goa involving electoral-roll software. According to the report, 97 voters were found eligible for inclusion by Electoral Registration Officers after submitting documents, but the software did not provide a mechanism to record the decision in time. Despite repeated requests from the Goa Chief Electoral Officer's office for the necessary facility to be enabled, the provision was reportedly not activated before the final electoral roll was published, leaving the 97 names out of the final roll.
The two Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns about the Election Commission's IT administration. In separate communications to the Cabinet Secretary, they objected to changes in work allocation that they believed had removed an important layer of oversight over the electoral-roll IT infrastructure. The report said the communications were sent without their prior knowledge of the changes. Following this episode, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners held a full meeting on September 9, their first such meeting in about four months, according to the investigation.
The reported objections have also brought renewed attention to the legal framework governing the functioning of the three-member Election Commission. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the Commission is to be transacted, as far as possible, unanimously. Where the members differ in opinion, the matter is decided by majority. The Act also provides for the Commission to determine its procedure and division of work by unanimous decision.
However, the Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to a breakdown in its decision-making process. Following the publication of the report, ECI officials said that all decisions of the Commission, including those relating to SIR, were taken unanimously and with the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar. The Commission has maintained that differences of view and observations during internal deliberations are part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body and do not mean that final decisions were taken without collective approval.
The controversy therefore centres on two distinct issues: the existence of written objections raised by two Election Commissioners on several aspects of electoral-roll management, and the Election Commission's assertion that its final decisions, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous. With electoral-roll revision, voter registration, database access and the handling of appeals remaining closely watched, the disclosures have added a new dimension to the ongoing debate over transparency and institutional decision-making within the country's poll panel.
One of the most significant issues concerns Form 6, the application form used by new voters to seek inclusion in the electoral roll. According to The Indian Express, a new declaration linked first-time voter applications to the electoral roll of the last SIR held in the early 2000s. Applicants were asked whether their own name or that of a parent or grandparent appeared in the earlier electoral roll. The report said Vivek Joshi had raised concerns in May over changing the form without an amendment to the relevant rules, while Sandhu agreed with the objection. On August 13, Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.
Another major concern raised by the two Commissioners related to access to the electoral roll database. Electoral rolls are prepared at the constituency level under Electoral Registration Officers, while digital systems such as ERONet and ECINet are used to manage the data. The Indian Express report said Joshi had warned of a “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database and proposed an audit to ensure that only the concerned statutory authorities had credentials to make changes. Sandhu subsequently raised concerns over reports from state-level election officials that they did not have proper and complete access to the ERONet system.
The issue has particular significance in West Bengal, where the SIR process has been the subject of extensive legal and political scrutiny. According to the report, the Election Commission recently informed the Supreme Court that around 38 lakh appeals were pending before tribunals in the state. Of these, about 22.21 lakh appeals were filed by electors whose names had been deleted and who sought restoration, while around 16.10 lakh appeals sought deletion of names that had been included by judicial officers. Sandhu reportedly questioned who had authorised the latter appeals to be filed on behalf of the Election Commission and who had actually filed them, saying that neither he nor Joshi nor the current Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or process.
The Indian Express investigation also highlighted an incident in Goa involving electoral-roll software. According to the report, 97 voters were found eligible for inclusion by Electoral Registration Officers after submitting documents, but the software did not provide a mechanism to record the decision in time. Despite repeated requests from the Goa Chief Electoral Officer's office for the necessary facility to be enabled, the provision was reportedly not activated before the final electoral roll was published, leaving the 97 names out of the final roll.
The two Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns about the Election Commission's IT administration. In separate communications to the Cabinet Secretary, they objected to changes in work allocation that they believed had removed an important layer of oversight over the electoral-roll IT infrastructure. The report said the communications were sent without their prior knowledge of the changes. Following this episode, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners held a full meeting on September 9, their first such meeting in about four months, according to the investigation.
The reported objections have also brought renewed attention to the legal framework governing the functioning of the three-member Election Commission. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the Commission is to be transacted, as far as possible, unanimously. Where the members differ in opinion, the matter is decided by majority. The Act also provides for the Commission to determine its procedure and division of work by unanimous decision.
However, the Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to a breakdown in its decision-making process. Following the publication of the report, ECI officials said that all decisions of the Commission, including those relating to SIR, were taken unanimously and with the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar. The Commission has maintained that differences of view and observations during internal deliberations are part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body and do not mean that final decisions were taken without collective approval.
The controversy therefore centres on two distinct issues: the existence of written objections raised by two Election Commissioners on several aspects of electoral-roll management, and the Election Commission's assertion that its final decisions, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous. With electoral-roll revision, voter registration, database access and the handling of appeals remaining closely watched, the disclosures have added a new dimension to the ongoing debate over transparency and institutional decision-making within the country's poll panel.
Post a Comment