EC says decisions related to SIR were taken unanimously:Differing views among election commissioners are normal; BJP calls it sign of healthy democracy

The Election Commission has addressed media investigation reports regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). In a press release issued on the social media platform X, the Commission stated that it is normal for a multi-member constitutional body to have differing opinions and suggestions. The Commission stated that all final decisions made over the past year, including the SIR, were made by consensus among its members. The BJP, on the other hand, argued that differing opinions among Election Commissioners are a sign of a healthy democracy. The Indian Express reported on Wednesday that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to the Commission’s decisions and orders. These included changes to Form 6, the addition and deletion of names from the voters’ list, and issues related to voter data. The report’s claims and the Election Commission’s response to them 1. Report on 14 objections and EC’s clarification Report: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have filed formal objections to the Commission’s decisions and orders at least 14 times in the past 10 months. The report said four of these objections were filed on the same day. EC’s response: The Election Commission stated that written notes, comments, technical suggestions, and internal audits are a normal and ongoing process. Their purpose is to ensure transparency, legal compliance, and the strengthening of the electoral process. The Commission stated that all its actions have been conducted in accordance with the law and the Commission’s directives. 2. Questions on adding or deleting names from the voter list Report: The two Election Commissioners’ objections also concerned the process of adding, deleting, and re-adding names to the voter list. Questions were also raised about appeals related to voter deletions in West Bengal. EC’s response: The Commission said that the work of registration and deletion of names of voters is done by statutory officers like Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and District Election Officer (DEO) under the law. 3. Questions on centralization of voter database Report: Sandhu and Joshi questioned the gradual centralization of access to the voter database in Delhi. Joshi suggested an audit to ensure that only authorized officials can make changes to voter records. EC’s response: The Election Commission stated that its digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols. IT security checks and audit controls are in place to prevent unauthorized alteration and tampering. 4. The case of declaring the measures related to new voters as ‘unauthorised and illegal’ Report: According to the Indian Express report, the Election Commissioners had termed some steps related to new voters as ‘unauthorised and illegal’. EC’s response: The Election Commission stated that all its actions were conducted in accordance with the law and the Commission’s directives. According to the Commission, operational questions and suggestions raised at the draft stage are part of the normal administrative process. 5. Objection to changes in Form-6 Report: Both Election Commissioners had objected to the changes to Form 6, used for registering new voters. Vivek Joshi stated that such changes to Form 6 could not be made without amending the election rules. Sandhu later objected. EC’s reply: Form-6 is not mentioned in the Commission’s press release. 6. The case of 97 voters in Goa Report: In one case in Goa, 97 voters who were considered eligible by electoral registration officers were not included in the final voter list due to a software problem. The report cited this as an example of concerns related to the centralization of data systems. EC’s response: The Election Commission’s press release did not provide a separate response on the issue of these 97 voters from Goa. BJP said: Dissenting views are part of democracy BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said that differing views emerging within the Election Commission were part of the democratic process. He said that if the commission’s members did not discuss issues among themselves and share their views, the Opposition would accuse them of toeing the government’s line. What provisions does the law contain? Under Section 18 of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the Commission’s work should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. If the CEC and other Election Commissioners hold differing views on an issue, the matter is decided on the basis of the majority view. Opposition demands action against Chief Election Commissioner Following the report, opposition parties demanded action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The Congress party dubbed the controversy “Gyaneshgate.” Read the statements of opposition leaders… Rahul Gandhi: I am clearly telling the Election Commission and the election officers that what you are doing is wrong. This is treason, it is against the country. The time will come. We will catch you. You will not escape. SP chief Akhilesh Yadav said, ” All Election Commissioners are failing to perform their duties properly. If the members of an independent body lack the freedom to act fairly or are not heard, this is a very dangerous and detrimental situation for democracy. It is a grave constitutional crime for some individuals to betray democracy by becoming puppets of power.” AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal – Only ERO has the right to add and remove names from the voter list, then how are people sitting in Delhi changing the voter list of the entire country? The opposition’s demand for the removal of Gyanesh Kumar is an old one In April 2026, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh claimed that 73 opposition Rajya Sabha MPs had given a notice to remove Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, alleging “proven misconduct”. Congress General Secretary KC Venugopal also demanded action against him. He alleged that genuine voters were influenced during the SIR and demanded a Supreme Court-monitored investigation. Earlier, a proposal for removal was also given in the Lok Sabha, but Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan had rejected it. Earlier too, there have been cases of differences between the commissioners in the Election Commission 1993-95: TN Seshan vs MS Gill-GVG Krishnamurthy In 1993, the Commission became multi-member with the appointment of two more Election Commissioners. The then-CEC, T.N. Seshan, challenged this in the Supreme Court. On July 14, 1995, the Court upheld the multi-member Commission. During this period, differences arose between Seshan and his fellow commissioners regarding their powers and functioning. 2009: CEC recommends removal of fellow commissioner In January 2009, CEC N. Gopalaswami recommended the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla to the President, accusing him of bias. The President rejected the recommendation. Chawla later became CEC in April 2009. 2019: Ashok Lavasa has a different opinion During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa dissented from the majority opinion on certain Code of Conduct matters involving Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. He demanded that this opinion be recorded in the orders. On May 21, 2019, the Commission decided 2:1 that such dissent would not be made public in the final order but could be recorded on file. Lavasa subsequently recused himself from some meetings related to the Code of Conduct. SIR completed in 10 states and 3 union territories The first and second phases of the SIR covered 10 states and three union territories. Following the SIR, the BJP won the assembly elections in Bihar, West Bengal, Puducherry, and Assam. The Congress alliance won in Kerala, and the TVK in Tamil Nadu. A special revision (SR) was conducted in Assam, returning the BJP government there as well. Third Phase: SIR in 16 states including Delhi, Maharashtra The Election Commission announced Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 16 states and three union territories, including Haryana, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Delhi, and Maharashtra, on May 14. This is the third phase of SIR. The entire process will run from May 30 to December 23. During this period, 36.73 crore voters are being verified. Among the states where SIR will be conducted, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Manipur have assembly elections next year. Elections in the remaining 13 states will be held in 2028 and 2029. ​