14 Objections in 10 Months: Inside the ECI's Internal Rift
By Squirrels·
Advertisement
Two of India's three Election Commissioners formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions made in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls — a process that ultimately deleted over 13 crore names from electoral registers across India. The objections, raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, alleged that key decisions were taken without their knowledge or consent.
What Is the SIR — and Why Does It Matter?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a process by which India's Election Commission of India (ECI) undertakes a comprehensive review and update of electoral rolls. Unlike routine annual revisions, an SIR involves door-to-door enumeration, deletion of ineligible names, and mass re-verification of voter eligibility.
The most recent SIR exercise became the subject of widespread controversy after reports emerged that the process had resulted in the deletion of over 13 crore (130 million) voter names from rolls across multiple states. The scale of the deletions — and the internal dissent they generated — is the subject of this analysis.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the ECI functions as a three-member body: the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners. Decisions of significant consequence are expected to reflect collegiate deliberation. The question raised by 14 formal objections over 10 months is whether that collegiate principle held.
What Did the Two Commissioners Actually Object To?
According to reporting by The Indian Express, which reviewed the internal records, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on at least 14 separate occasions between late 2024 and mid-2025. Notably, four of those objections were made on a single day, indicating clustered disagreement on a specific set of decisions rather than a gradual drift.
The objections covered a range of issues, including:
Changes to Form 6 — the standard form used by citizens to apply for fresh voter registration
Additions of new voter names to electoral rolls in disputed circumstances
Deletion of existing voter names without, the commissioners alleged, adequate process
Restoration of deleted names — the conditions and criteria governing which deleted names would be reinstated
Electoral roll IT systems — concerns about access, transparency, and the integrity of the digital infrastructure managing voter data
Work allocation within the ECI — the internal division of responsibilities between the CEC and the two Election Commissioners
The commissioners are reported to have also written to the Cabinet Secretary regarding their concerns about ECI work allocation and IT systems — an unusual step that signals the dispute extended beyond internal dissent to formal external escalation.
The objections collectively alleged that decisions were being taken "without their knowledge" — a phrase that appears across multiple reported instances. The words "unauthorised" and "illegal" were reportedly used by the commissioners in their formal notes.
Who Is at the Centre of the Controversy?
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has come under scrutiny in connection with the objections. Under the current structure, the CEC chairs the commission and exercises significant administrative authority over the SIR process and electoral roll management.
The ECI, as an institution, has not publicly acknowledged the specific content of the internal objections. The controversy has, however, drawn significant response from opposition political parties, who have cited the 14 objections as evidence of institutional irregularities in the voter roll revision exercise.
It is important to note what the record shows — and what it does not. The existence of formal internal objections does not, by itself, establish that voter deletions were unlawful or motivated by partisan considerations. What it does establish is that two of three commissioners believed, formally and on record, that proper process was not being followed.
What Does the Law Say About ECI Decision-Making?
The legal framework governing the ECI is relevant context for understanding why these objections matter institutionally.
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 2023 — passed following a Supreme Court directive — restructured the appointment process for election commissioners. However, questions about the collegial functioning of the body — how decisions are made when commissioners disagree — remain areas of institutional ambiguity.
Under established administrative law principles, when a multi-member statutory body takes consequential decisions affecting millions of citizens, the process by which those decisions are made is subject to scrutiny. Formal dissent on record creates a documentary trail that is legally significant.
The Supreme Court of India had, in the landmark Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) judgment, emphasized the importance of the ECI's independence and the need for transparent, process-driven functioning. The court's observations form the backdrop against which the internal rift must be read.
What Are the Commissioner's Rights Within the ECI?
The precise powers of individual Election Commissioners relative to the CEC are not exhaustively codified in statutory law. Conventions and constitutional practice have historically governed the internal functioning of the body. This ambiguity is itself an institutional vulnerability — one that the 14 objections bring into sharp relief.
How Many Voter Names Were Deleted — and Where?
The SIR exercise resulted in the deletion of over 13 crore names from voter rolls across India. This figure, if accurate [UNVERIFIED: State-wise breakdown of SIR deletions pending independent data confirmation], would represent one of the largest single-exercise reductions in electoral roll size in India's post-independence history.
For reference:
India's total electorate as of the 2024 General Elections stood at approximately 96.8 crore registered voters (ECI, 2024)
A deletion of 13 crore names would represent approximately 13.4% of the 2024 electorate
The scale is comparable to the entire voting-age population of a large Indian state
The ECI's stated rationale for the SIR was the removal of duplicate, deceased, and ineligible voter entries — a legitimate electoral hygiene objective. The contested question is whether the process that produced 13 crore deletions followed the procedural safeguards mandated by law, and whether the two dissenting commissioners were adequately consulted on the criteria and implementation.
What Pattern Does This Fit?
The internal rift at the ECI does not emerge in isolation. It follows a series of institutional questions about India's electoral machinery that have accumulated over recent years.
The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling on the appointment of election commissioners — establishing a three-member selection committee that included the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, before a legislative amendment altered the composition — reflected judicial concern about the independence of the appointment process.
The 2024 General Elections saw multiple complaints about Model Code of Conduct enforcement and differential treatment of political parties, which the ECI addressed in formal responses.
The NEET irregularities controversy (2024) and subsequent judicial scrutiny of National Testing Agency processes established a wider pattern: institutional bodies exercising significant public authority facing questions about internal process integrity.
The data pattern the 14 objections reveal is this: a statutory three-member body, designed to function as a collegiate check, appears to have experienced a sustained breakdown of collegiate decision-making over a ten-month period, on a matter — voter roll integrity — that is foundational to electoral democracy.
Multiple Perspectives on the SIR Controversy
Institutional controversies of this kind draw sharply divergent readings. The record shows the following positions:
The ECI's Institutional Position: The ECI has not publicly acknowledged the specific allegations contained in the 14 objections. The organisation has defended the SIR exercise as a lawful, necessary process for maintaining accurate electoral rolls, and has maintained that due process was followed.
The Dissenting Commissioners' Position: As reported, Sandhu and Joshi believed that decisions were being taken without their knowledge, and used language — "unauthorised," "illegal" — that indicates they considered the procedural lapses to be serious. Their written communication with the Cabinet Secretary suggests they sought external institutional recourse when internal channels appeared insufficient.
Opposition Parties' Position: Multiple opposition parties have cited the 14 objections as evidence of partisan manipulation of voter rolls. These claims go beyond what the objections themselves establish — the commissioners objected to process, not to alleged partisan motivation — and should be assessed separately from the documentary record.
The Legal and Civil Society Position: Electoral law practitioners and civil society organisations focused on electoral integrity have called for judicial review of the SIR deletions, and for the ECI to publish a transparent, state-wise account of the criteria used for deletion and the appeals process available to deleted voters.
What Should Be Done?
The documentary record of 14 formal objections points toward three specific institutional reforms:
Codify collegiate decision-making protocols within the ECI. The Representation of the People Act and related rules should be amended to specify the decision-making process when Election Commissioners disagree, including quorum requirements and majority-rule mechanisms for consequential decisions affecting voter rolls.
Mandate public disclosure of SIR criteria and outcomes. The ECI should publish, for each state, the specific criteria applied in the SIR deletions, the number of names deleted under each criterion, and the number of appeals filed and resolved. This transparency requirement should be codified in electoral rules.
Establish a time-bound judicial review mechanism for mass deletions. Any SIR exercise resulting in deletions exceeding a defined threshold — for example, 5% of a state's electoral roll — should trigger automatic judicial scrutiny by the respective High Court before the revised rolls are finalised.
These reforms do not presuppose that the SIR deletions were unlawful. They address the institutional design failure that made a sustained internal rift possible — and that left 13 crore voter deletions without an adequate independent check.
FAQ — Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls?
The SIR is a process by which India's Election Commission undertakes a comprehensive review of electoral registers, including door-to-door enumeration and removal of ineligible, duplicate, or deceased voter entries. It is distinct from annual summary revisions and involves a more extensive field operation.
Who are the two Election Commissioners who raised objections?
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions related to the SIR exercise, including changes to voter registration forms, name deletions and additions, and the IT systems managing electoral roll data.
Who is Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar?
Gyanesh Kumar is the Chief Election Commissioner of India, who chairs the three-member ECI. He has come under scrutiny from opposition parties following reports of the 14 internal objections by his two colleagues.
How many voter names were deleted in the SIR exercise?
Reports indicate that over 13 crore (130 million) names were deleted from voter rolls across India as part of the SIR exercise. A state-wise official breakdown has not been independently verified at the time of publication.
Is there a legal challenge to the SIR voter roll deletions?
Multiple petitions and representations have been filed before courts and the ECI regarding the SIR deletions. The matter has also drawn judicial attention in the context of broader electoral roll integrity concerns. [UNVERIFIED: Specific pending litigation status as of publication date.]
What did the Election Commissioners write to the Cabinet Secretary about?
According to reports, the two commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary raising concerns about internal work allocation within the ECI and about the IT systems managing electoral roll data — indicating the dispute extended to formal external escalation beyond the commission itself.
Conclusion
Fourteen formal objections in ten months, raised by two of three Election Commissioners, on matters as fundamental as voter registration and deletion — the documentary record, as reported, points to a sustained breakdown of collegiate decision-making at an institution that is constitutionally central to Indian democracy.
The SIR exercise's outcome — over 13 crore deleted names — may or may not withstand legal scrutiny. That question will be answered by courts. What the 14 objections reveal, irrespective of that outcome, is an institutional process question: whether the ECI's internal governance structure is adequate for the consequential decisions it is required to make.
The data suggests it was not — at least not in this instance. The reforms required are not punitive; they are structural. Codified collegiate protocols, mandated transparency on deletion criteria, and automatic judicial review for mass deletions would not weaken the ECI. They would strengthen it — as a body whose authority derives precisely from the credibility of its process.
The integrity of the electoral roll is not a technical question. It is the foundation on which every vote cast in India rests.