card_membershipSubscribechrome_reader_modeEpaperhomeHomedescriptionIndiarate_reviewOpinionplaceWorldexploreMiddle Eastbusiness_centerBusinesslibrary_musicEntertainmentgroupLifestylememoryTechnologysports_soccerSportsperm_mediaMultimediaspaCulturelanguageMalayalam News
Posted On
date_range
Updated On
date_range

Kept in the dark: 2 Election Commissioners blow whistle on voter deletions and SIR

The investigation highlights how both Commissioners were systematically kept out of key decision-making processes, disrupting the Commission’s constitutional responsibilities, including registering new voters, deleting and restoring names, handling appeals against SIR decisions, and ensuring the custody and security of electoral-roll data.

Keeping the other two Commissioners uninformed, neglecting their grievances over the “unauthorised” and “illegal” adding of new voters to the list, even bypassing the State officials while centralising the process in Delhi, and taking decisions and issuing orders without informing them are apparently grave concerns revealed in an investigation report by The Indian Express about the Election Commission.

The report says Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally raised their objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months about the Special Intensive Revision process, which began in Bihar in 2025 and has subsequently extended across States and Union Territories, as well as about decisions being taken and orders being issued without informing them.

According to The Indian Express, more than 13 crore names have been struck off the draft electoral rolls during the exercise, placing the Commission under heightened public scrutiny over the process of voter registration, deletion and restoration.

The investigation highlights how systematically both the Commissioners were kept out of key decision-making processes, which amounted to a disruption of the Commission’s constitutional responsibilities, including the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, appeals against decisions taken during the SIR, and the custody and security of electoral-roll data. The objections were also copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

One major issue concerned Form 6, which is used by citizens seeking registration as voters. In July, the form began asking applicants whether they, or their parents or grandparents, existed in the electoral roll of the previous SIR.

According to the report, Joshi had warned in May that the form could not be altered in this manner without an amendment to the relevant rules, while Sandhu agreed with his view. Nevertheless, the change was introduced. Sandhu subsequently described it as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.

The two Commissioners also raised concerns over access to the electoral-roll database. The Commission has traditionally maintained that electoral-roll preparation is decentralised, with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) exercising statutory authority over voters’ lists in their respective constituencies. However, Joshi warned of the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and called for an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could make changes to voter data.

Sandhu later recorded that State-level election officials were reporting that they did not have “proper and complete access” to the ERONet portal, while questioning the legal authority of the Election Commission’s IT division to restrict such access.

The report also highlights disputes over the filing of appeals in West Bengal, where the SIR process became particularly contentious. Sandhu questioned who had authorised appeals against voters whom judicial officers had included in the rolls, stating that neither he, Joshi nor the State’s Chief Electoral Officer had been informed about the basis or process through which the appeals were filed.

In Goa, meanwhile, the concerns over centralised software had tangible consequences. Electoral Registration Officers found 97 voters eligible for inclusion after examining documents relating to “logical discrepancies”, but the software lacked a mechanism to record their decisions. Requests to enable a rollback facility were not acted upon before the final roll was published, leaving the 97 voters out of the final electoral roll.

The dispute also raises questions about the functioning of the three-member Commission under the 2023 law. Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the ECI, while Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, states that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously, with differences decided by majority. The same provision requires the Commission to determine its procedure and division of work by unanimous decision.