The election commission of India (ECI) is facing scrutiny over its internal decision-making after two of its three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months on matters concerning electoral rolls, voter registration and the commission's technology systems.
The objections,
reported by The Indian Express after examining internal exchanges and speaking to officials in several states, relate to some of the most sensitive parts of the election machinery — adding and deleting names from electoral rolls, changes to the voter-registration process, access to the electoral database and appeals arising from the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
ECI, however, has rejected any suggestion that the internal notes point to a breakdown in its functioning. In a
note issued on Wednesday, the poll panel said written observations, technical suggestions and differences during the drafting stage were normal features of a multi-member constitutional body. It maintained that official decisions and orders had the required legal sanction and that decisions taken by the full commission over the past year, including those relating to electoral-roll revision and SIR, were unanimous.
14 Objections over 10 Months
According to the investigation by The Indian Express, Mr Sandhu and Dr Joshi put their concerns on record at least 14 times, including four objections on a single day. The issues ranged from changes to form 6, used by citizens to apply for voter registration, to access controls over the electoral roll database and the filing of appeals concerning voters whose names had been retained after scrutiny.
The report said some of the objections were addressed to or copied to chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and senior officials.
The latest phase of the disagreement reportedly involved changes to work allocation within the ECI’s administrative and IT structure. According to The Indian Express, both Mr Sandhu and Dr Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet secretary TV Somanathan over a change they said had been made without their knowledge and which affected oversight of the electoral-roll technology infrastructure. The two commissioners subsequently struck down the change.
The full commission met on 9 September 2026 after what the report described as a four-month gap between full meetings.
Form 6 Change Becomes a Flashpoint
One of the clearest disputes concerned form 6, the application used by an adult citizen to seek inclusion in the electoral roll.
According to The Indian Express, a new question was added to the form this year, asking applicants whether they or their parents or grandparents appeared on the electoral roll in the last SIR (2002). The report, said Dr Joshi, had raised concerns in May that such a change could not be made without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with Mr Sandhu agreeing with the objection.
After the change was reported publicly in July, Mr Sandhu recorded an objection in August and described the alteration as unauthorised and illegal, according to the newspaper's investigation.
The episode has raised a broader question about the extent to which administrative forms used in voter registration can be altered through internal processes rather than through the statutory route.
Concerns over Control of Electoral Database
Another major area of disagreement concerns the technology used to maintain electoral rolls. The Indian Express reported that Dr Joshi had raised concerns in May about what he described as the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database and sought an audit to ensure that only the statutory authorities responsible for the rolls had credentials allowing changes to voter records.
Mr Sandhu subsequently raised similar concerns, saying state-level election officials had reported problems accessing ERONet, the system used to maintain electoral rolls, according to the report.
The concern is significant because electoral registration officers (EROs) have statutory responsibilities relating to voter registration and deletion. The question raised internally was whether technical controls over the database could restrict these officials' ability to exercise those powers.
ECI, in its response, said its digital platforms, including ECINet, operate with data-security protocols, audit controls and safeguards against unauthorised tampering or manipulation. It also stressed that EROs and district election officers continue to exercise their statutory powers relating to registration and deletion.
West Bengal Appeals Also Questioned
The internal exchanges also touched on the contentious SIR process in West Bengal. According to The Indian Express, Mr Sandhu sought answers on appeals filed against voters who had been retained on the electoral roll following scrutiny by judicial officers. He asked who had authorised those appeals and who had filed them, while recording that neither he, Dr Joshi nor the state's chief electoral officer (CEO) had been informed of the basis or process, the report said.
The issue arose against the backdrop of litigation over the SIR in West Bengal and the subsequent involvement of judicial officers and tribunals in examining disputes over voter inclusion and deletion.
The Indian Express reported that the ECI recently told the Supreme Court that about 3.8mn (million) appeals were pending before the tribunals, including appeals by voters seeking restoration of their names and others seeking deletion of voters who had been retained.
Goa Case Highlights Technology Concern
The newspaper also reported a specific problem in Goa involving voters whose cases had been examined by EROs.
Following a Supreme Court direction, EROs considered documents submitted by voters flagged for what the SIR system termed 'logical discrepancies'. According to the report, officials found 97 voters eligible to remain on the final roll, but the software did not provide a mechanism to record the decisions and reverse the earlier deletions.
The Goa CEO's office subsequently wrote several times seeking activation of a rollback facility, according to the investigation. The provision was not enabled before the final roll was published, leaving the 97 voters out of the final list.
The episode has become one of the concrete examples cited in the debate over the relationship between statutory election officials on the ground and the ECI’s centralised technology systems.
What the Law Says about a Multi-member Commission
The disagreement also raises questions about how the ECI is expected to conduct its business.
Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the ECI as the constitutional authority responsible for elections. The 2023 law governing the appointment and service conditions of the CEC and election commissioners provides that the commission's business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. Where the members differ, the law provides for a decision based on the majority view.
The Indian Express reported that both Mr Sandhu and Dr Joshi referred to these provisions in communications to ECI officials, raising concerns about communications being issued in the name of the ECI without the requisite approval of the commission.
ECI Says Dissent Is Part of the Process
ECI’s response presents a different picture of the internal exchanges. The poll panel said operational queries, technical inputs and observations made by commissioners during the preparation of decisions are part of normal administrative practice. It said these discussions are intended to improve electoral processes, protect voter rights and ensure legal compliance.
The commission also said that focusing on selected internal notes from a 10-month period without considering its broader work gives only part of the picture.
According to ECI, the full commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions and introduced around 40 initiatives and electoral reforms during the past year. It said these included electoral-roll revision, SIR and other election-related measures, and maintained that the decisions were unanimously approved by the full commission.
The poll panel also pointed to the elections conducted in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal during this period, saying the exercises involved extensive administrative work and numerous commission approvals and instructions.
Why It Matters
At the heart of the controversy is not simply whether election commissioners disagree internally. Differences during institutional deliberations are not unusual. The more consequential questions are whether statutory powers were exercised through the prescribed process, whether all members of the commission were adequately involved in decisions taken in its name, and how much operational control over voter databases rests with statutory officers versus the central IT infrastructure.
The investigation by The Indian Express has brought those questions into the public domain through its reporting on the internal notes of Mr Sandhu and Dr Joshi. ECI, for its part, has maintained that the notes represent routine internal scrutiny rather than evidence that final decisions were taken outside the commission's legal framework.
The commission has also defended the security of ECINet and related systems, saying they are subject to cybersecurity checks and audit controls and that the statutory powers of EROs and DEOs remain intact.
Amazing how the Modi/Shah empire is crumbling down after Cockroach Janata Party challenged them.