‘Differing views’ part of ‘decision-making’, says EC, does not address concerns two ECs red-flagged

In recent months, the note said, the Commission “has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) acr­oss the country. All these decisi­ons are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Com­mission in the past one year.”

It said that highlighting “certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture”.

It added that “not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorized to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system.”

However, the statement did not say who approved the controversial change to Form 6, why was no action taken even after the Commissioners had warned that it was “illegal. Or, who authorised the lakhs of appeals filed on behalf of the ECI  against restored voters in West Bengal, why the two Commissioners’ proposal for an audit of ECINet went unanswered, or why the full Commission did not meet between May and August.

Incidentally, it did not respond to the questionnaire sent by The Indian Express on September 21.

On the electoral-roll software, the Commission said its digital platforms “operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorized tampering” and that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers “function as per statutory powers for registration and deletion under law”.

WATCH | Sukhbir Singh Sandhu & Vivek Joshi: Who Are The 2 ECs Who Objected To SIR?

Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu’s August 14 note, however, recorded that officers were reporting they “don’t have proper and complete access to the ERONet portal,” and that the Director General of IT “doesn’t have any legal authority to restrict” them.

The Commission’s assertion that decisions were unanimous leaves unanswered how the objections recorded by the two Commissioners fit into that process.

One example is Form 6. On May 16, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi recorded on file that the form “cannot be altered without making amendments in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960” and advised sending the proposal to the Government. Sandhu concurred on May 19.

In July, the SIR declaration appeared on the online form anyway. Sandhu learnt of it from The Indian Express’s July 12 report. On August 13, he wrote that the change had been made “in spite of these very clear views expressed by two Election Commissioners,” called it “unauthorised/illegal” and directed that it “must be removed immediately”. As of Tuesday, the question remained on the form.

A second example is the work-allocation order of July 28. It was issued within hours of a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner being given temporary charge of the Administration Division and changed, in the two Commissioners’ words, the allocation “especially with regard to IT/ICT”.

Joshi wrote that it was issued “without discussing or informing the revised allocation of work with the Commission or the undersigned”. When he asked for the file, he wrote, “it was not provided”.

On July 29, both Commissioners wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary, calling the order a “clear violation of Section 18(1) and 18(2)” of the 2023 Act and seeking action against the officer. On July 30, they jointly set aside the new allocation.

The Commission’s press note does not mention the order, the two letters to the Cabinet Secretary or the subsequent reversal.

The Express investigation, published Tuesday, was based on internal notes and letters from October 2025 to August 2026 in which Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded that a statutory voter registration form was changed against their written advice, that control of the electoral roll software had been centralised in the Commission’s IT division over their objections, that lakhs of appeals had been filed in West Bengal without their knowledge of who authorised them, and that a work-allocation order had been issued without the Commission’s approval, prompting both to write to the Cabinet Secretary. Their most serious notes were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.