ECI Responds To Internal Dissent: What Its Nine New Decisions Mean For SIR And Electoral Rolls

The Election Commission of India has announced a series of administrative and technological changes days after an Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over decisions concerning electoral rolls, information technology systems and the functioning of the three-member poll panel.

The ECI had described the objections as “suggestions” and “inputs” arising from its deliberations, while maintaining that key decisions over the past year had the unanimous approval of all three commissioners. But following a Commission meeting on Saturday, a four-page note announced nine decisions that address several issues raised by Sandhu and Joshi over the past 10 months.

What Are The Election Commission’s New Decisions?

The ECI said agendas will now be circulated before every Commission meeting and minutes issued afterwards. Foreign travel by officers will require the Commission’s approval, while new IT modules and portals will first be examined by a committee of officers before being placed before the Commission.

The Commission also decided to review ECINet through a committee headed by a senior Deputy Election Commissioner, with an independent expert from an IIT or IIIT included in the process. The ECI said field officers would be given greater flexibility where required and that directions issued by commissioners to officers would be “meticulously complied with”.

The decisions correspond closely with several concerns reportedly raised by Sandhu and Joshi. These included the absence of circulated agendas and meeting minutes, foreign travel by officials without Commission approval, development of IT modules without the commissioners’ knowledge and demands for an independent audit of the electoral-roll database.

Joshi had also raised concerns over field officers’ access to ERONet, while both commissioners had objected to an administrative order concerning the allocation of work in the IT division.

The Commission also addressed the situation in Goa, where The Indian Express reported that 97 voters cleared by local election officers were still missing from the final electoral roll. According to the ECI, 81 of them have now submitted Form 6, and the Goa Chief Electoral Officer has been directed to facilitate their inclusion.

The developments came as Opposition parties stepped up their criticism of the ECI and called for elections conducted using Special Intensive Revision (SIR) rolls to be cancelled.

Form 6 And Other Questions Remain Unresolved

The ECI's note does not appear to settle all the issues raised by the two commissioners, particularly the dispute over Form 6.

The Commission said the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules would apply outside the SIR period. This addresses part of an objection reportedly made by Joshi in May.

However, the reported objection also concerned the online version of Form 6 on ECINet, where an additional question about an applicant's parents had been inserted between sections J and K. According to the report, applicants could not proceed without answering it. The ECI's latest note does not specifically refer to that online form or clarify whether the additional question has been removed.

The Commission has also said the Supreme Court “upheld” the declaration requirement. However, the May 27 Supreme Court order on the SIR process does not appear to expressly make such a finding, according to the report.

Several other questions remain open. The ECI's note does not address who authorised appeals in West Bengal against voters whose inclusion had been ordered by judicial officers, or whether such appeals were filed on behalf of the Commission.

It also does not explain why a software facility sought in Goa to restore voter names was not enabled.

Questions have also been raised over the roles of DG (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The two commissioners had reportedly raised concerns about their functioning and sought action against Garg. The latest note does not indicate whether there will be any change in their positions.

The larger question is how the Commission will function after the reported differences. The new measures indicate that several issues raised by Sandhu and Joshi have prompted institutional changes, but it remains to be seen whether the three commissioners will now be involved more closely in administrative and technological decisions and how the internal decision-making process will evolve.

This version keeps the distinction between what the ECI has formally decided, what the commissioners reportedly objected to, and what remains unanswered, while avoiding treating the Indian Express findings or Opposition allegations as independently established facts.