The Congress has intensified its criticism of the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR. The latest criticism comes amid reports about internal observations by two Election Commissioners and continuing political disagreements over the process of updating and verifying voter lists.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh on September 24 alleged that the current electoral roll revision process could result in eligible voters being excluded. He particularly referred to young citizens and the procedures for adding new voters. Ramesh described the process as the Method of Disenfranchising Indians and used the first letters of the phrase to form the acronym MODI. This is a political description used by Congress and is not an established description of the Election Commission's SIR process.
The latest remarks followed reports concerning the functioning of the three member Election Commission. The Indian Express had reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on several occasions regarding decisions and procedures connected with electoral roll revision. The reported issues included voter deletions, voter registration forms and access to electoral databases.
Congress has cited these reports while questioning the decision making process within the Election Commission. Ramesh alleged that the reported objections and subsequent developments raised concerns about the transparency of the electoral roll revision exercise. The party has also argued that the process could create difficulties for citizens who need to register as voters or establish their eligibility.
A major issue raised by Congress concerns first time voters. Citizens who have reached the age of 18 and meet the legal requirements are eligible to register as voters. Congress has alleged that changes or additional requirements connected with voter registration could create difficulties for young citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
The debate over new voters is linked to Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. Reports concerning internal discussions within the Election Commission have referred to changes and questions surrounding the process for new voter registration. Congress has argued that any additional procedural requirement should not create unnecessary barriers for eligible citizens.
Another issue in the controversy involves the ECINet digital system used in the management of electoral information. Ramesh cited a report concerning Goa and alleged that Electoral Registration Officers had raised concerns about voters whose names were deleted through the software. He claimed that some officials had sought restoration of valid voter names. These claims have been made by Congress based on reported communications and should be distinguished from independently established findings.
The Congress has also referred to reported restrictions on access to electoral databases by Electoral Registration Officers. Ramesh argued that local election officials have statutory responsibilities relating to electoral rolls and questioned whether changes to digital access could affect their ability to perform those responsibilities.
The controversy comes against the background of the nationwide expansion of SIR. The Election Commission has described the exercise as a process intended to identify eligible voters, remove ineligible or duplicate entries and update electoral rolls. The Commission has maintained that the revision is being conducted according to constitutional provisions, electoral laws and established instructions.
The number of notices issued to voters in Delhi has also become part of the political debate. The Election Commission has issued notices to electors whose records were identified with discrepancies or other issues during the SIR process. According to reports, more than 33 lakh electors in Delhi were issued notices over discrepancies in information submitted through enumeration forms.
The notices do not automatically mean that all such voters have been removed from the electoral rolls. They are part of the verification process through which voters can provide information or documents and respond to issues identified in their electoral records. This distinction is important when discussing claims about voter deletion.
Congress has nevertheless argued that the verification process could disproportionately affect citizens who have difficulty producing older electoral records or supporting documents. The party has called for safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not inadvertently excluded.
The controversy has also intensified because of reports concerning differences among the Election Commissioners. Reports said that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections during internal deliberations on several electoral roll related matters. Congress has cited those reports as evidence that questions were raised within the Commission about aspects of the SIR process.
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported differences amounted to a split within the institution. In its response, the Commission said that individual views, observations and suggestions expressed during internal deliberations do not themselves constitute decisions of the Commission. It stated that major decisions, including those concerning SIR, were taken unanimously.
The Commission has also defended the broader purpose of electoral roll revision. Its stated position is that electoral rolls need to be updated to remove ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring that eligible citizens are included. The poll body has said that the SIR exercise is part of its constitutional responsibility for maintaining accurate electoral rolls.
The Congress has taken a different position and has questioned whether the current verification mechanisms provide sufficient protection for eligible voters. The party has demanded greater transparency and has continued to criticise the role of the Election Commission under Gyanesh Kumar.
The dispute is therefore centred on two contrasting positions. Congress argues that aspects of SIR could lead to eligible voters being excluded and has questioned the procedures used for voter verification and registration. The Election Commission maintains that the exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls and that final decisions of the Commission have been unanimous.
The issue involving Gen Z voters has received particular attention because a new generation of citizens becomes eligible to vote every year. Any delay or difficulty in voter registration can affect when newly eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll. At the same time, the eligibility and registration process remains governed by election law and the procedures notified by the Election Commission.
The political debate is expected to continue as the SIR exercise progresses across states and Union Territories. The key issues include voter verification, deletion and restoration of names, registration of new voters, access to electoral databases, documentation requirements and the opportunity available to citizens to raise claims and objections.
For voters, the ongoing controversy highlights the importance of checking their electoral information through official Election Commission channels and using the prescribed procedures if corrections or inclusion are required. The political allegations surrounding SIR should be distinguished from the Election Commission's stated position and from findings that may emerge through official reviews or legal proceedings.
The latest exchange between Congress and the Election Commission therefore reflects a wider political dispute over the administration of electoral rolls. Congress continues to question the process and the leadership of the poll panel, while the Election Commission maintains that its procedures and final decisions are based on electoral law and institutional deliberation.