ECI Rejects 'Rift' Claims Over SIR, Says All Decisions Taken Unanimously After Report Flags 14 Objections

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected reports of an internal rift over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, asserting that all decisions, including those related to the revision exercise, were taken unanimously with the approval of the Chief Election Commissioner and both Election Commissioners.

The clarification came after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months to decisions and orders linked to the SIR process.

ECI sources said that questions, comments and requests for clarification may have been raised during internal discussions, but maintained that there was no formal dissent against any final decision of the Commission.

What Did The Indian Express Report?

The Indian Express investigation, published on September 23, said Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on record at least 14 times, including four instances on a single day. According to the report, the objections concerned decisions that the two Commissioners said had been taken or communicated without their knowledge or approval.

The report highlighted four broad areas of concern changes to Form 6 used for new voter registration, access and control over the electoral-roll database, appeals filed during the SIR process in West Bengal, and software-related issues affecting voter registration and restoration.

One of the objections concerned changes to Form 6. The report said the form was modified to include a question linking new voter applications to the electoral roll of the previous SIR. Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal”, while Joshi had earlier raised concerns about making such a change without an amendment to the relevant rules.

The Commissioners also reportedly questioned what the Indian Express described as the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and whether statutory election officials at the state and constituency levels continued to have the required access and authority.

Another objection related to appeals in West Bengal. According to the report, Sandhu questioned who had authorised appeals against decisions that restored voters’ names and whether the process had been communicated to the concerned Commissioners.

The investigation also cited a Goa case in which software limitations allegedly prevented the restoration of 97 voters who had been found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers.

ECI Says No Formal Dissent Over SIR

Responding to the report, ECI sources maintained that there was no disagreement over final decisions of the poll panel.

The Commission pointed to the procedure under which its business is preferably transacted unanimously, with a majority decision applicable in cases where the members differ. The ECI’s position is that the existence of questions or objections raised during deliberations does not amount to formal dissent over the final decisions taken by the Commission.

The clarification is significant because the Indian Express report had portrayed the repeated objections as evidence of sustained internal disquiet within the three-member constitutional body.

What Is SIR And Why Has It Drawn Scrutiny?

The Special Intensive Revision is an exercise to revise and verify electoral rolls. It began in Bihar in June 2025 and has subsequently been expanded to other states and Union Territories.

The exercise has faced scrutiny over the deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls. The Indian Express reported that more than 13 crore names had been removed from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the process.

The ECI has maintained that the exercise is intended to identify and remove ineligible entries, including names of deceased, shifted or duplicate voters, while ensuring that eligible voters are included in the rolls.

The SIR process has also been subject to judicial scrutiny. In West Bengal, for instance, the ECI recently told the Supreme Court that more than 38 lakh appeals had been filed in connection with the revision process, including appeals seeking restoration of deleted names.

Opposition Questions ECI, Seeks Action

The Indian Express report triggered sharp reactions from Opposition parties, with several leaders questioning the functioning of the poll panel and raising concerns about the SIR process.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav described the reported objections as serious and urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. Congress MP Manish Tewari said that, if the reported facts were correct, they raised questions about the functioning and credibility of the Election Commission.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh shared the Indian Express report and said party leader Abhishek Singhvi would address the issue in detail. Congress general secretary KC Venugopal also called for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien renewed the Opposition’s demand for action against the CEC, while Shiv Sena UBT MP Sanjay Raut and CPI(M) MP John Brittas also criticised the Commission over the reported objections. RJD MP Manoj Jha questioned the ECI’s functioning and called for the CEC’s resignation.