NEW DELHI: The Election Commission of India is pushing back against reports of an internal rift over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The controversy erupted after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over a 10-month period over decisions and directions linked to voter registration, deletion of names and the handling of electoral-roll data.
The Election Commission, however, says that framing these internal notes as a “split” gives only one side of the story.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the poll panel said that written notes, technical suggestions and differing views are a normal part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body.
The Commission acknowledged that Sandhu and Joshi had raised “operational queries or inputs” on issues including SIR.
But it said these were raised during the drafting and deliberation stages, before final decisions were taken.
According to the EC, such suggestions are intended to improve the electoral process and safeguard voters' rights. It also stressed that not only the three Election Commissioners but other officers are authorised to offer suggestions on electoral matters.
The poll panel further said that focusing on selected internal notes over a 10-month period, while ignoring its wider body of approvals and decisions, presents only “one part of the picture”.
Its position is clear: the final decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously by the full Commission.
The Indian Express investigation reported that the objections went beyond routine technical questions.
According to the report, Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns over new voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll software and access to voter databases.
One major issue involved Form 6, the application used by new voters to register.
The report said a new question connected applicants to the electoral roll used during the previous SIR. Joshi had reportedly raised concerns about the legality of changing the form, with Sandhu also agreeing with those concerns.
The investigation also reported objections over the increasing role of centralised digital systems in managing electoral-roll data.
Another flashpoint involves ERONet and ECINet, the digital systems used in electoral-roll management.
The Indian Express reported concerns from the two commissioners about access to the database and what they described as a gradual centralisation of control.
The EC, meanwhile, has defended its digital systems, saying platforms such as ECINet operate with security protocols, audit controls and safeguards against unauthorised manipulation. It also stressed that statutory authorities such as Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continue to exercise their legal powers over voter registration and deletion.
SIR has become one of the most closely watched electoral exercises in the country because it directly affects the voter rolls.
The Indian Express investigation reported that the revision process had resulted in more than 13 crore names being struck from draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories.
That makes questions around who can be added, removed or restored to the electoral roll particularly significant.
The internal exchanges therefore matter not simply because two commissioners raised objections, but because the issues reportedly touched the mechanics of who gets to appear on the voter list and how those decisions are administered.
The Commission has rejected the suggestion that these exchanges amounted to a breakdown in collective decision-making.
It said the notes and observations were part of the internal process through which proposals are examined before decisions are finalised.
The EC also pointed to the elections and electoral exercises conducted during the past year, saying its decisions and reforms were approved unanimously by the full Commission.
The controversy, however, is unlikely to disappear simply because the Commission has rejected the word “rift”.
At the heart of the debate is a basic democratic question:
When it comes to the voter list, how transparent, decentralised and accountable should the process be?
For now, the EC's answer is that internal disagreement during deliberations is part of institutional functioning — and that the final decisions stand as unanimous decisions of the Commission.
The competing accounts of what happened inside the poll panel remain the centre of the controversy.
