ECI defends SIR process, calls internal dissent constitutional not a crisis
Synopsis
The Election Commission of India is pushing back hard on a narrative of institutional breakdown — insisting that 14 internal objections over 10 months, far from being a rupture, are evidence of constitutional checks working as designed. With a Supreme Court judgment already backing the SIR process and historical precedents of far sharper internal ECI battles, the real question is whether the dissent points to a genuine transparency gap or merely a governance debate being amplified ahead of high-stakes elections.
Key Takeaways
The Election Commission of India (ECI) rejected claims of institutional breakdown, saying internal dissent among its three members is a constitutional norm , not a crisis.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised 14 formal objections over 10 months , including on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIR on 27 May 2026 under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 .
The ECI clarified that the reported 13 crore 'deletions' refer to names not carried forward in the draft roll — not final exclusions — and that 1.14 lakh voters have been restored after appeals.
India has conducted 10 SIR exercises since Independence , eight under Congress-led governments .
In Goa , a software limitation prevented reversal of deletions for 97 eligible voters ; analysts called it a technical gap, not evidence of deliberate disenfranchisement.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday, 23 September 2026, firmly rejected characterisations that disagreements among its three members constitute an institutional 'rupture', asserting that internal objections and written dissent notes are a recognised, routine feature of any multi-member constitutional body and do not, by themselves, establish illegality or dysfunction.
The Commission's response came after a report by The Indian Express revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised 14 formal objections over 10 months on decisions of the Commission, including matters connected to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The ECI's Position on Internal Dissent
In a press note issued on Wednesday, the ECI said that internal notes and checks are routine mechanisms designed to ensure transparency and legal compliance. The Commission pointed out that it has functioned as a multi-member body since 1993, with differences resolved through majority decisions as provided by law. According to the ECI, all official decisions carry legal sanction under the 2023 law governing the Commission's conduct of business.
The Commission further stated that around 40 new initiatives introduced over the past year were unanimously approved by the full Commission, and that elections were successfully conducted in Bihar, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Assam, and West Bengal during this period.
Historical Precedents of Internal Disagreement
Analysts and legal observers note that sharper internal disagreements within the ECI are not without precedent. In 2009, then-Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami recommended the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla over alleged partisan conduct — a recommendation the government rejected. Chawla subsequently became Chief Election Commissioner. Between 1993 and 1995, CEC T.N. Seshan challenged the very creation of the multi-member Commission in court, leading to an open legal battle with Commissioners M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Krishnamurthy. Commissioner Gill later joined the Indian National Congress (INC) and became a Union Cabinet Minister after his tenure.
'During a nationwide exercise involving crores of voters, 14 objections over 10 months cannot by themselves establish an institutional crisis,' analysts said, adding that the Commission has witnessed far more acrimonious splits historically.
Disputed Claims Around SIR and Form 6
On the question of Form 6 — the statutory voter-registration form — the ECI disputed suggestions that it had been illegally altered. The Commission said its May 2026 SIR order had already provided for a separate Declaration Form to accompany Form 6, containing questions on whether a voter or relative appeared in the previous SIR roll. Legal observers noted that changing a statutory form and adding a linked declaration are distinct legal actions.
The reported figure of 13 crore 'deletions' was also described as misleading by the Commission. The ECI clarified that the figure refers to names not carried forward into the draft roll — not final deletions — and that the SIR process provides for claims, objections, hearings, and a final roll. More than 1.26 lakh appeals have been resolved and 1.14 lakh voters restored, the Commission said.
In Goa, 97 voters were found eligible after hearings, but software lacked the facility to reverse earlier deletions. The Chief Electoral Officer reportedly wrote eight times seeking a solution before the final-roll deadline. Observers said this points to a technical shortcoming requiring correction, not evidence of intent to disenfranchise voters.
Supreme Court Backing and Legal Safeguards
The legal backdrop to the controversy is the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The apex court examined the procedure and did not find the exercise disproportionate or contrary to law, also recognising the Commission's responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls.
Analysts noted that SIR is not a first-time exercise — India has conducted 10 such revisions since Independence, eight under Congress-led governments. The process incorporates multiple safeguards including Booth Level Officers, supervisors, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), EROs, draft publication, claims and objections, hearings, final-roll publication, and monitoring by political parties through Booth Level Agents.
Where the Debate Now Stands
Analysts acknowledged that the documented disagreements merit scrutiny, particularly on transparency and decision-making, but stressed that internal dissent and institutional wrongdoing are categorically separate questions. Concerns over 'centralisation' of electoral data remain a matter of scrutiny rather than established wrongdoing, they said, noting that the Commissioners sought an audit of database access — and that seeking an audit is not evidence of tampering.
The ECI's position is that a multi-member body debating and recording objections, while ultimately taking decisions through the prescribed constitutional process, represents institutional checks working as intended — not a crisis. How political parties, the judiciary, and civil society respond to the ongoing SIR process will shape whether this remains a procedural debate or escalates into a broader electoral-integrity dispute.
Point of View
Not the bug, and the Supreme Court has already upheld SIR's constitutional footing. But the Commission would do itself a disservice by treating every question as an attack to be deflected: the 13-crore figure confusion, the Goa software lapse, and the Form 6 declaration ambiguity are real procedural gaps that deserve plain-language answers, not press notes. The deeper issue mainstream coverage is missing is this: India has conducted SIR ten times before, eight under Congress-led governments, yet this cycle has drawn unprecedented internal dissent. That warrants a structural explanation — not just a historical whataboutery. Institutional credibility in electoral bodies is hard to build and easy to erode; the ECI's energies are better spent on radical transparency than on narrative management.
NationPress
23 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
SIR is a periodic exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India to update and purify the electoral rolls by verifying voter eligibility and removing duplicates, deaths, and shifted entries. India has conducted 10 such revisions since Independence, eight of them under Congress-led governments. The Supreme Court upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIR in its judgment dated 27 May 2026.
Why have Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi raised 14 formal objections?
According to a report by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised 14 formal objections over 10 months on various Commission decisions, including matters linked to the SIR process. The ECI has said these objections are a routine part of multi-member constitutional body functioning and do not establish illegality or dysfunction.
Is the reported deletion of 13 crore voters from the rolls accurate?
The ECI has disputed this characterisation, clarifying that the figure refers to names not carried forward into the draft roll — not final, confirmed deletions. SIR provides a full process of claims, objections, hearings, and a final roll before any name is permanently excluded. More than 1.26 lakh appeals have been resolved and 1.14 lakh voters restored.
Has the Supreme Court weighed in on the SIR controversy?
Yes. In its judgment dated 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The court examined the procedure and did not find it disproportionate or contrary to law, and also recognised the Commission's duty to maintain accurate electoral rolls.
How does this compare with past internal disputes at the ECI?
The ECI has seen sharper disagreements historically. In 2009, then-CEC N. Gopalaswami recommended the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla over alleged partisan conduct — a move the government rejected. Between 1993 and 1995, CEC T.N. Seshan challenged the multi-member Commission structure in court. Analysts say 14 objections over 10 months, while notable, does not by itself constitute an unprecedented or structural crisis.
