Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, expressed serious concern over allegations that Booth Level Officers' (BLO) identity cards and one-time passwords (OTPs) were misused to delete names from electoral rolls in Dhampur, Odisha. His remarks came as the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The BLO Complaint at the Heart of the Controversy

According to reports, 10 BLOs in Dhampur, Odisha, filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that officials used their identity cards and OTPs to delete several names from voter rolls without their knowledge. Rawat noted that such conduct, if proven, would represent a serious breach. 'This is indeed very concerning. Generally, BLOs or Election Commission employees report any wrongdoing to Election Commission officials,' he said. The fact that these officers chose to file an FIR — rather than escalate internally — underlines the gravity of the allegation.

What the Election Commission Told the Supreme Court

The Election Commission of India on Monday filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court, asserting that all three orders relating to the SIR exercise — issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026 — were approved unanimously by the three-member Commission. The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's functioning, which alleged that key decisions on electoral roll revision were taken without the knowledge or approval of the other two Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Internal Objections and the Consensus Question

The controversy deepened after reports emerged that Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections to several decisions taken in the name of the poll panel over the past 10 months. The Commission, however, maintained in its affidavit that observations, suggestions, and queries noted by individual members during file processing did not constitute formal decisions of the Commission. It also clarified that Form 6, used for voter registration, had not been amended, and that the declaration introduced for the SIR was a separate document.

Rawat's Assessment of the Affidavit

Commenting on the Commission's legal filing, Rawat said formal decisions were expected to follow established procedural norms. 'I think it is correct because when the CEC and Election Commission's affidavit has come, it would be absolutely correct that all SIR-related decisions would have been taken on file, so all three would have signed it,' he said. He added that decisions reached during Commission meetings would inherently reflect consensus among its members. Rawat also noted that the point-wise response submitted by the poll panel should be assessed as legal proceedings progressed, and that fuller clarity would emerge once the matter was examined comprehensively.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is actively considering the petitions challenging the Commission's functioning and the legality of the SIR decisions. The ECI's counter-affidavit now forms part of the judicial record and remains subject to scrutiny. The BLO FIR in Odisha, meanwhile, adds a ground-level dimension to a dispute that has already reached the country's highest court — and could complicate the Commission's claim of orderly, unanimous decision-making.