chroniclecraze.blogspot.com
Internal Dissent Rocks India's Election Commission: 14 Objections in 10 Months Over SIR Voter Deletions
India's Election Commission is facing its gravest internal crisis in decades, with an explosive investigation revealing that two of its three commissioners formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions they claim were made without their knowledge — objections that strike at the very heart of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process that has seen over 13 crore names struck from draft voter rolls across 30 states and union territories.
The Scale of the SIR
The SIR, which began in Bihar in June 2025 and has since expanded nationwide, was pitched as a routine clean-up of electoral rolls — a necessary exercise to remove duplicate entries and ineligible voters after 22 years. The numbers, however, tell a far more troubling story. According to data cited by the Congress party, 7.8 crore names were deleted during the first two phases alone, amounting to 13% of the pre-SIR electoral roll . In the ongoing Phase 3, a further 6.18 crore names have been struck from a total of 36.06 crore voters — a deletion rate exceeding 17% .
The combined figures paint a stark picture: approximately 32% of voters — roughly one in three — have either had their names deleted or face the risk of deletion .
The 14 Objections: What the Two Commissioners Flagged
The Indian Express investigation, published on 22 September 2026, revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected to decisions and orders at least 14 times over a 10-month period — four times on a single day . Their objections were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, yet many of the concerns they raised were never addressed.
The objections covered several critical aspects of electoral-roll management: the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, appeals against roll decisions, changes to the statutory Form 6, and the management of the Election Commission's voter database .
The Indian Express investigation, published on 22 September 2026, revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected to decisions and orders at least 14 times over a 10-month period — four times on a single day . Their objections were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, yet many of the concerns they raised were never addressed.
The objections covered several critical aspects of electoral-roll management: the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, appeals against roll decisions, changes to the statutory Form 6, and the management of the Election Commission's voter database .
Form 6: "Unauthorised and Illegal"
One of the most striking objections concerned Form 6 — the application citizens use to register as voters. In May 2026, Commissioner Joshi warned on file that the form could not be altered without the government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu agreed .
Yet the change was made anyway. A new question was inserted asking applicants whether they, their parents, or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. By August, Sandhu had put on record that the alteration was "unauthorised and illegal" and "must be removed immediately" . Until at least Monday morning, that question remained on the portal .
One of the most striking objections concerned Form 6 — the application citizens use to register as voters. In May 2026, Commissioner Joshi warned on file that the form could not be altered without the government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu agreed .
Yet the change was made anyway. A new question was inserted asking applicants whether they, their parents, or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. By August, Sandhu had put on record that the alteration was "unauthorised and illegal" and "must be removed immediately" . Until at least Monday morning, that question remained on the portal .
The Centralisation of Voter Data
Perhaps the most consequential objection concerns the architecture of India's electoral database. The Election Commission's longstanding defence against allegations of rigging has been that roll preparation is decentralised — each constituency's list is controlled by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority typically the Sub-Divisional Magistrate .
Both Joshi and Sandhu repeatedly questioned whether this decentralisation was being dismantled from within. Joshi red-flagged what he described as the "gradual centralisation" of the electoral roll database in May, proposing an audit to certify that no one except statutory authorities had credentials to alter the voter database . Sandhu later recorded that state-level election officials were reporting they "don't have proper and complete access" to the ERONet portal, and that the Commission's Director General of IT "doesn't have any legal authority to restrict" such access .
This is not a mere bureaucratic squabble. If Electoral Registration Officers — the legally designated custodians of voter eligibility — cannot fully access the system they are supposed to control, the entire statutory framework underpinning India's electoral roll management is called into question.
Perhaps the most consequential objection concerns the architecture of India's electoral database. The Election Commission's longstanding defence against allegations of rigging has been that roll preparation is decentralised — each constituency's list is controlled by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority typically the Sub-Divisional Magistrate .
Both Joshi and Sandhu repeatedly questioned whether this decentralisation was being dismantled from within. Joshi red-flagged what he described as the "gradual centralisation" of the electoral roll database in May, proposing an audit to certify that no one except statutory authorities had credentials to alter the voter database . Sandhu later recorded that state-level election officials were reporting they "don't have proper and complete access" to the ERONet portal, and that the Commission's Director General of IT "doesn't have any legal authority to restrict" such access .
This is not a mere bureaucratic squabble. If Electoral Registration Officers — the legally designated custodians of voter eligibility — cannot fully access the system they are supposed to control, the entire statutory framework underpinning India's electoral roll management is called into question.
West Bengal: Who Authorised the Appeals?
In West Bengal, where the SIR was most fiercely contested, the Supreme Court intervened in February 2026, taking the last leg of the process out of the Commission's hands and appointing judicial officers to decide the fate of 60 lakh flagged voters . Of these, 27 lakh were subsequently deleted. The court then ordered tribunals of retired High Court judges to hear appeals.
The Commission then told the court that 38 lakh appeals were pending — but 16.1 lakh of these were appeals against voters whom judicial officers had included, seeking their deletion . Sandhu formally asked: "Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?" . The question remains unanswered.
In West Bengal, where the SIR was most fiercely contested, the Supreme Court intervened in February 2026, taking the last leg of the process out of the Commission's hands and appointing judicial officers to decide the fate of 60 lakh flagged voters . Of these, 27 lakh were subsequently deleted. The court then ordered tribunals of retired High Court judges to hear appeals.
The Commission then told the court that 38 lakh appeals were pending — but 16.1 lakh of these were appeals against voters whom judicial officers had included, seeking their deletion . Sandhu formally asked: "Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?" . The question remains unanswered.
The ECI's Response
The Election Commission has rejected suggestions of internal dysfunction. Sources told NDTV that no Election Commissioner gave any dissent, insisting that all decisions had the signatures of all three officers . The ECI stated that "differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation" and that all orders "are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission" .
Yet the investigation notes that the three-member Commission held its first full meeting in four months on 9 September 2026 — a striking detail that lends weight to the commissioners' claims of being kept in the dark .
The Election Commission has rejected suggestions of internal dysfunction. Sources told NDTV that no Election Commissioner gave any dissent, insisting that all decisions had the signatures of all three officers . The ECI stated that "differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation" and that all orders "are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission" .
Yet the investigation notes that the three-member Commission held its first full meeting in four months on 9 September 2026 — a striking detail that lends weight to the commissioners' claims of being kept in the dark .
The Political Fallout
The revelations have ignited a political firestorm. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge described the SIR as a "Frankenstein Monster," while Jairam Ramesh branded it a "Method Of Disenfranchising Indians" — a phrase whose initials spell "MODI" . Priyanka Gandhi Vadra demanded that CEC Gyanesh Kumar be criminally prosecuted for "treason" .
Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray demanded Kumar's arrest, thanking Sandhu and Joshi for "exposing" the CEC . DMK president M.K. Stalin called for Kumar's immediate removal and a halt to the SIR .
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has expressed concern that the SIR notices issued in Delhi to over 33 lakh voters appear "machine-generated" and mechanically issued, asking whether recipients even know what "logical discrepancies" they are expected to disprove .
The revelations have ignited a political firestorm. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge described the SIR as a "Frankenstein Monster," while Jairam Ramesh branded it a "Method Of Disenfranchising Indians" — a phrase whose initials spell "MODI" . Priyanka Gandhi Vadra demanded that CEC Gyanesh Kumar be criminally prosecuted for "treason" .
Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray demanded Kumar's arrest, thanking Sandhu and Joshi for "exposing" the CEC . DMK president M.K. Stalin called for Kumar's immediate removal and a halt to the SIR .
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has expressed concern that the SIR notices issued in Delhi to over 33 lakh voters appear "machine-generated" and mechanically issued, asking whether recipients even know what "logical discrepancies" they are expected to disprove .
What This Means for Indian Democracy
The SIR was supposed to be a technical exercise. Instead, it has become a constitutional crisis. The objections from within the Election Commission itself — from two commissioners appointed under the same 2023 Act as the CEC — suggest that the concerns raised by opposition parties and civil society are not merely political posturing.
At stake is not just the integrity of one electoral exercise, but the foundational principle that every eligible Indian citizen has the right to vote, and that the machinery designed to protect that right is functioning impartially. When two of the three custodians of that machinery feel compelled to formally object, on record, 14 times in 10 months, the question is no longer whether the SIR is flawed. The question is whether India's democracy can afford to ignore the answer.
The SIR was supposed to be a technical exercise. Instead, it has become a constitutional crisis. The objections from within the Election Commission itself — from two commissioners appointed under the same 2023 Act as the CEC — suggest that the concerns raised by opposition parties and civil society are not merely political posturing.
At stake is not just the integrity of one electoral exercise, but the foundational principle that every eligible Indian citizen has the right to vote, and that the machinery designed to protect that right is functioning impartially. When two of the three custodians of that machinery feel compelled to formally object, on record, 14 times in 10 months, the question is no longer whether the SIR is flawed. The question is whether India's democracy can afford to ignore the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment