Special Intensive Revision: Internal Dissent within the Election Commission

25 Sep 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Electoral System   Key electoral mechanisms

Source: The Indian Express

Context: Electoral rolls require periodic revision to remove errors and ensure that all eligible citizens can vote. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is constitutionally responsible for conducting such exercises.

• The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), however, has raised concerns about transparency, voter inclusion and the functioning of the ECI itself.
• An investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken during the SIR process.

Concerns Raised by the Two Election Commissioners

• The two Commissioners reportedly stated that important decisions were taken without adequately involving them, raising questions about collegiality and internal checks within the three-member Commission.
• They objected to changes in Form 6, used by new voters to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, arguing that the new requirements were not supported by the existing rules.
• They also raised concerns over the centralisation of the electoral database, warning that excessive control from the ECI headquarters could weaken the decentralised role of statutory electoral authorities at the state and constituency levels.
• When concerns regarding the integrity and control of electoral software remained unresolved, the Commissioners reportedly approached the Cabinet Secretary.

Form 6 and First-Time Voters

• Form 6 is the prescribed application for inclusion of a person's name in the electoral roll.
• Under the reported modification, applicants were asked to indicate whether their own, or their parents' or grandparents' names appeared in an earlier electoral roll associated with the SIR.
• The two Commissioners reportedly questioned the legality and appropriateness of linking the registration of new voters to such historical electoral-roll records.
• The issue raises a broader concern: requirements for voter registration should not create disproportionate procedural barriers for otherwise eligible citizens.

Centralisation of Electoral-Roll Data

• Electoral-roll preparation is institutionally decentralised, with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) playing a statutory role in preparing and revising rolls for constituencies.
• The Commissioners reportedly questioned whether increasing central control over the digital voter database could restrict the ability of EROs to make or record decisions at the appropriate level.
• This creates a governance challenge: digitisation can improve efficiency and reduce duplication, but excessive centralisation can weaken accountability, traceability and local statutory oversight.

Ground-Level Concerns with SIR

• The SIR has generated concerns regarding the burden placed on citizens to establish eligibility, particularly among poor, migrant and documentation-deficient populations.
• In Bihar, the Supreme Court noted that nearly 65 lakh electors were excluded from the draft roll after the initial exercise; it subsequently directed publication of exclusion lists with reasons and allowed Aadhaar as an additional identity document, while clarifying that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.
• In West Bengal and other states, the process has also generated disputes concerning deletions, appeals and the transparency of the grounds on which voters were flagged.
• The central concern is the need to balance electoral-roll integrity with universal and non-discriminatory access to the franchise.

Burden of Proof and Vulnerable Voters

• A major criticism is that the process may shift the practical burden of establishing eligibility from the electoral administration to individual voters.
• Complex documentation requirements, short compliance periods and uncertain appellate timelines can disproportionately affect citizens with limited resources or weak documentary records.
• From a governance perspective, electoral verification should therefore combine accuracy with accessibility, procedural fairness and adequate opportunity for appeal.

Supreme Court's Role

• In its May 2026 judgment concerning Bihar's SIR, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct the exercise under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It also held that the ECI may undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship for determining electoral eligibility.
• During the Bihar proceedings, the Court directed the ECI to provide reasons for exclusions and to accept Aadhaar as an additional identity document, while distinguishing identity from proof of citizenship.
• The present debate therefore concerns not merely the ECI's statutory authority, but also how that authority is exercised and what procedural safeguards accompany it.

Constitutional and Institutional Issues

• Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI.
• Institutional independence: Electoral autonomy is essential to ensure that elections remain insulated from executive and partisan pressures.
• Collegial functioning: The ECI is a multi-member constitutional body; effective functioning requires meaningful participation, deliberation and recording of differences among Commissioners.
• Accountability: Institutional independence does not eliminate the need for transparency, reasoned decision-making and internal checks.
• Right to vote: Although the right to vote is a statutory right, the constitutional framework governing elections requires electoral administration to be fair, inclusive and non-arbitrary.

Key Governance Concerns

• The controversy highlights the tension between clean electoral rolls and maximum voter inclusion.
• Technology-driven centralisation must be accompanied by strong access controls, audit trails and clear responsibility for changes to electoral databases.
• Administrative efficiency cannot substitute for procedural transparency and accountability.
• Internal dissent within constitutional institutions can function as an institutional safeguard when concerns are formally recorded and appropriately considered.

Way Forward

• Ensure that changes to voter-registration forms are consistent with the governing statutory and regulatory framework.
• Preserve meaningful access of EROs and other statutory authorities to electoral databases within clearly defined security protocols.
• Establish transparent audit mechanisms for digital changes to electoral rolls.
• Provide voters adequate notice, accessible documentation requirements and time-bound appeals against exclusion.
• Institutionalise procedures for recording and resolving disagreements among Election Commissioners.