Election Commissioner objections trigger Opposition demand for CEC’s removal 

A reported series of internal objections within the Election Commission of India has triggered a fresh political confrontation over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with Opposition parties calling for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s removal. 

An investigation by The Indian Express published on September 23 reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders they said had been taken without their knowledge. The objections reportedly concerned some of the most consequential aspects of the SIR exercise, including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll software, and appeals against voter inclusion. 

The report has prompted a sharp political response. Opposition leaders have questioned whether the Election Commission’s three-member structure was being followed in practice and called for Kumar to be removed. CPI(M) MP John Brittas, among others, has demanded that Parliament initiate the removal process, while Congress leaders have sought explanations for decisions allegedly taken without the approval of all three commissioners. 

The Election Commission, however, has rejected the characterization of the developments as an institutional split or formal dissent. According to the Commission and people familiar with its functioning, Sandhu and Joshi had raised observations on various issues, but the final decisions of the poll body, including those relating to SIR, were unanimous and carried the approval of all three commissioners. 

The reported objections nevertheless raise questions about how decisions were being processed internally. 

One major issue concerns Form 6, which is used by citizens applying to be registered as voters. According to The Indian Express, a new question linking applicants to the electoral roll from the previous SIR was added to the form despite Joshi raising concerns in May about whether such a change could be made without an amendment to the relevant rules. Sandhu subsequently described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its removal. 

Another concern involved access to the digital electoral-roll database. Joshi reportedly warned of the “gradual centralisation” of the database and proposed an audit to ensure that only legally authorised officials could make changes. Sandhu later raised similar concerns about state-level election officials allegedly lacking complete access to the ERONet system. 

The dispute also extends to West Bengal, where the SIR process has been particularly contentious. Sandhu reportedly questioned who had authorised appeals seeking deletion of voters whose names had been included by judicial officers, and why the process had not been communicated to him, Joshi, or the state’s Chief Electoral Officer. 

A fourth issue concerns Goa, where software limitations reportedly prevented Electoral Registration Officers from restoring 97 voters whom they had found eligible after considering documents. The case became significant because the Supreme Court had directed that voters flagged for discrepancies be given an opportunity to establish their eligibility. 

The legal framework adds another layer to the dispute. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the Commission’s business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, while differences are to be resolved by majority. The law also provides for the Commission to determine its internal procedure and allocation of work through a unanimous decision. 

The immediate political fallout is likely to keep the focus on two separate questions: whether the reported objections indicate a substantive breakdown in the functioning of the three-member Commission, and whether the Election Commission’s explanation that its final decisions were unanimous adequately addresses the concerns raised in the internal communications. 

For now, the competing accounts remain sharply different. The Indian Express investigation points to repeated objections by two commissioners, while the Commission maintains that its decisions were collectively approved. The controversy therefore places the poll body’s internal decision-making, as well as the wider SIR exercise, under renewed public and political scrutiny.