14 objections, 3 commissioners: what the Election Commission rift reveals about decision-making

A reported rift within the Election Commission has raised questions about the process by which voter-registration decisions, electoral-roll orders and related technology are being taken. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a three-member constitutional body. But an investigative report in Indian Express has asked an intriguing question: what happens if Election Commissioners (ECs) take umbrage at decisions taken in the name of the Election Commission?

The report said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised at least 14 objections in the last 10 months over management of electoral rolls, including addition and deletion of names, appeal-related orders and related technology. The objections were also sent to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has denied that its decisions are being taken without the consent of all three members. Election Commission spokespersons said on September 23 that all orders, including those relating to Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls or SIR, were taken unanimously by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners. What the controversy highlights is the decision-making process of the Election Commission and its technology-related orders.

How is the Election Commission supposed to work?

The Constitution (Article 324) mandates that the superintendence, direction and control of elections and electoral rolls be vested in the Election Commission.

When there is more than one Election Commissioner, the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission. So, the three Election Commissioners are equal in status.

The law (Section 18 of the 2023 Election Commission Act) mandates that the Commission’s business must be transacted unanimously “as far as practicable”. A dispute or difference of opinion between members must be resolved by a majority decision.

Thus, while the CEC has the power to take decisions on his own, he/she is not supposed to take important decisions on his/her own. The current issue is less about the law and more about the details of the functioning of the Election Commission and its technology.

Were the contentious actions formally approved by the Election Commission?

The Indian Express report says that Sandhu and Joshi objected to the actions of the Election Commission on various grounds. ECI spokespersons say this view is misconceived as all orders are formally approved by the three Election Commissioners.

At the heart of the controversy is the following question: were the objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi formally noted by the Election Commission?

The Indian Express report quotes Sandhu as saying that a particular order had been taken “unlawfully” and “without the concurrence of the Election Commissioners”.

Note that it is not a question of policy decision but about the administrative machinery through which voters are added to or deleted from the electoral rolls.The issue, therefore, cuts to the heart of the administrative process of the Election Commission as much as it does to electoral rolls.

The SIR context

The Election Commission’s SIR campaign has thrown up numerous issues. It began in Bihar in June 2025 and has since been extended to 30 States and UTs. More than 13 crore names have been removed from the draft electoral rolls as of September, according to the Indian Express.

This must be put in perspective. Of the more than 13 crore names that have been removed from the rolls, how many actually turned out to be eligible voters? It is important to make a distinction between people whose names did not appear on the draft rolls and those who were disqualified from becoming voters. The SIR process allows for objections and appeals.

This is important because when the Indian Express report states that “over 13 crore voters would be disenfranchised”, it is conflating two distinct concepts.

Why did Form 6 become an issue?

One of the disputes within the Election Commission was over changes to Form 6, the application for voter registration. Sandhu and Joshi objected to changes that required applicants to state whether they, their parents or grandparents were registered voters during the last SIR.

Indian Express quotes Joshi as saying that Form 6 “could not be changed by notification in exercise of power” unless the law was amended. Sandhu reportedly took the same view, though he later said that the changes to Form 6 were “unlawful and unauthorised”.

Note that it is not just a question of changes to voter registration forms. Form 6 is the statutory application for voter registration. Thus, the controversy within the Election Commission cuts to the heart of the law.

Can changes to statutory forms be effected by way of administrative or technological changes without amending the law? That is the issue that Sandhu and Joshi have raised. It is a policy issue. The report cites Sandhu as saying, “I consider such changes in Form 6 as unauthorised and illegal and seek its withdrawal.”

Sandhu’s position is not that Form 6 should not be changed. He objects to the process by which the changes are being proposed. He says the changes cannot be made simply by way of an administrative order.

The ECINet controversy

The second major controversy relates to technology. The Election Commission launched ECINet on January 22, 2026. The portal brings together more than 40 Election Commission applications and websites. It is said to provide an integrated technology framework for elections. The Indian Express report quotes Sandhu and Joshi as saying that they are concerned about the “centralization” of the voter-database management. It is a contentious issue because, according to the law, it is the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) who is responsible for preparing and maintaining the electoral rolls. The ERO hears appeals and decides on the inclusion or exclusion of voters from electoral rolls.

The ERO’s mandate includes ensuring that claims and objections are disposed of in a fair and transparent manner. Indian Express quotes Sandhu as saying, “EROs, DEOs, and CEOs are legally mandated to prepare and maintain electoral rolls, conduct voter registration, and adjudicate disputes. By imposing centralized software controls, we are usurping the judicial powers of these statutory authorities.”

The issue that Sandhu raises is that software controls have limited the ability of the statutory authorities to take decisions on voters’ inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls.

The EROs, for example, may have the legal authority to delete voters from electoral rolls. However, if the software does not allow the ERO to take that decision, who exactly does have that authority?

Why is West Bengal important?

West Bengal is one of the most politically sensitive States in India. The Indian Express report notes that during the SIR process, there were 38.31 lakh appeals to the appellate tribunals. Out of these, 22.21 lakh were appeals by deleted voters, while 16.10 lakh were appeals by voters for deletion, according to the Election Commission.

The Election Commission does not say who has filed the 16.10 lakh appeals for deletion. The Indian Express report highlights the controversy over the process by which appeals for deletion or inclusion are being handled. In particular, the report cites concerns about log-in authorities for handling appeals. While the 22.21 lakh appeals by deleted voters may be seen to be an issue of voter disenfranchisement, the 16.10 lakh appeals for deletion cannot be dismissed as “adverse voter action”. The reports highlight a controversy over the process by which deletion appeals are being handled.

What happened in Goa?

Indian Express highlights concerns over the deletion of 97 voters in Goa. According to the report, these voters met the eligibility criteria of the ERO and were found to be eligible. However, due to “software restrictions”, their names could not appear on the final electoral roll. The controversy raises serious questions about the processes by which voters are deleted or included in the electoral rolls. As the report points out, if there is an error in a typical database, it can be corrected. But if there is an error in an electoral-roll database, the consequences can be far greater for voters.

The legal actions issue

The Indian Express report also highlights a controversy over legal actions taken in the name of the Election Commission. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly objected to certain legal actions not having the concurrence of the Election Commissioners.

At this stage, it must be noted that even if the objections by Sandhu and Joshi are valid, it does not automatically mean that the legal actions taken are. It raises the fundamental question: who speaks for the Election Commission?

Who has the authority to take legal actions in the name of the Election Commission? That is a contentious issue for any constitutional authority. It is particularly pertinent in the case of the Election Commission since its orders and decisions can have far-reaching consequences.

What does the Election Commission say?

This is where the Indian Express report becomes particularly important. The report shows that there are two distinctly different views of the same issue. Two Election Commissioners have objected to certain orders being taken by the Election Commission. The Election Commission spokespersons have said that all decisions of the Election Commission, including those relating to the SIR, have been taken unanimously by the CEC and the Election Commissioners.

The Election Commission maintains that

The controversy is best understood in the context of written objections. The Indian Express report contains details of the objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi. But the legal effect of those objections is unclear.

Does it mean that the disputed Election Commission orders were not actually taken by the Election Commission or that the orders did not have the concurrence of the Election Commissioners? The most important evidence will be the actual orders taken by the Election Commission.

What is this controversy about?

The controversy is about the decision-making process of the Election Commission and the technology that supports that process. It is pertinent to recall that the electoral-roll management system in India is designed to have checks and balances at multiple levels. From the Election Commission to the EROs and from the District Election Officers to the Booth Level Officers, the system has been designed to allow voters to be added to or deleted from electoral rolls by officials at multiple levels.

Technology can make many of these processes more efficient. It can also introduce new vulnerabilities. When voters are added to or deleted from electoral rolls using technology, there must be accountability. There must be a paper trail. Whenever a voter is added to or deleted from an electoral roll, three key questions must be asked: who took the decision? What was the legal authority for that decision? And what was the process?

The ECINet controversy raises a fourth question: who actually takes the decision to delete or add voters to the electoral roll? The 14 objections raise a fifth question: how are differences of opinions between Election Commissioners recorded and dealt with?

These are not merely academic questions. They cut to the heart of the administrative process by which voters are added to or deleted from electoral rolls. And, by extension, voters’ right to vote.