An investigation into the functioning of the Election Commission of India has reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally raised objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months regarding decisions and procedures connected with electoral roll management and the Special Intensive Revision process.
The report by The Indian Express said the objections were recorded between November 2025 and August 2026 and covered several issues, including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, access to electoral roll databases, the functioning of election-related information technology systems and the filing of appeals concerning voter records. According to the report, four of the objections were made on a single day.
The reported developments have drawn attention because the Special Intensive Revision, commonly known as SIR, is a major exercise involving the verification and revision of electoral rolls. The investigation said that more than 13 crore names had been struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the exercise. However, this figure requires an important clarification. The reported removals from draft rolls do not mean that more than 13 crore citizens were permanently removed from the electoral system. The electoral process includes provisions for claims, objections, verification, restoration and appeals.
According to the investigation, one of the major areas of concern involved the technology used for managing electoral rolls. The Election Commission launched ECINet in January 2026 as a technology platform bringing together more than 40 applications and portals. The platform was presented by the Commission as part of efforts to improve the management of electoral information and strengthen transparency.
The Indian Express report said Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns about the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral roll database. They questioned whether statutory election officials at the state and district levels had adequate access to systems required to perform their legal responsibilities.
Electoral Registration Officers, or EROs, have statutory responsibilities relating to the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. According to the investigation, concerns were raised over situations in which software restrictions could affect the ability of such officers to add, delete or restore voter names.
The report also referred to a case in Goa involving 97 voters. According to the investigation, Electoral Registration Officers had examined the relevant cases and found the voters eligible, but the software did not provide the required facility to reverse an earlier deletion. The Goa Chief Electoral Officer’s office reportedly contacted senior officials seeking a technical solution. The case became part of the broader discussion about whether the design of election software could affect the practical exercise of powers assigned to statutory officers.
Another reported disagreement involved Form 6, which is used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. According to The Indian Express investigation, Joshi raised concerns in May 2026 about changes to the form. Sandhu subsequently supported the objection. The report said the revised online form included a declaration concerning the applicant’s name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, in an earlier Special Intensive Revision.
The investigation reported that the two commissioners questioned whether such a change could be introduced without following the appropriate legal process for modifying the rules governing electoral registration. Sandhu later recorded a formal objection to the change, according to the report.
The handling of electoral data and the administration of the Election Commission’s IT division also became part of the reported dispute. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan after changes were made to the allocation of administrative responsibilities connected with the Commission’s IT division.
The report said the two commissioners objected to the changes and raised concerns about the manner in which the decision had been taken. The disputed work-allocation order was subsequently set aside, with the earlier arrangement continuing until the Commission reached a consensus on a change.
The investigation also reported concerns relating to appeals in West Bengal. It said Sandhu questioned the process through which appeals were filed against decisions concerning voters during the SIR process. He reportedly sought information about who had authorised the appeals and who had filed them on behalf of the Election Commission.
These developments have raised broader questions about the internal decision-making process of the three-member Election Commission. The current Commission consists of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Under the legal framework governing the Election Commission, decisions are generally expected to be taken unanimously where possible. Where the commissioners do not agree, the matter can be decided according to the applicable majority procedure.
The reported objections therefore relate not only to individual decisions concerning voter rolls but also to questions about how decisions are recorded, how the Commission’s IT systems are administered and how statutory responsibilities are exercised at different levels of the electoral machinery.
However, the Election Commission has rejected the characterization that the reported objections amounted to an internal rift over SIR. According to sources cited by PTI and other media reports, all decisions of the Election Commission, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Commission’s position is important in understanding the controversy. While the Indian Express investigation reported that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded formal objections on several issues, the Commission has maintained that such observations did not change the final decisions of the three-member body and that decisions relating to SIR were taken with the approval of all three commissioners. Another report citing people familiar with the matter said the commissioners had made observations that were considered by the poll panel, rather than issuing formal dissent on the final SIR decisions.
The controversy has therefore developed around two different aspects of the Commission’s functioning. The Indian Express investigation has highlighted a series of written objections and concerns allegedly raised by two commissioners over electoral databases, voter registration, deletions, appeals and IT administration. At the same time, the Election Commission has stated that the final decisions, including those connected with SIR, were unanimous.
The issue is significant because electoral rolls form the foundation of the voting process. Any changes involving the addition, deletion, restoration or verification of voter names can have direct consequences for citizens seeking to participate in elections. The debate over SIR is consequently not limited to the number of names affected but also concerns the procedures, safeguards, technology and legal authority involved in maintaining electoral rolls.
Further scrutiny of the reported objections, the Commission’s response and any future judicial or official proceedings will determine how the issues raised in the investigation are addressed. At present, the reported objections and the Election Commission’s denial of an internal disagreement remain the two key aspects of the controversy.