Election Commission, Electoral Rolls and Institutional Accountability

30 Sep 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Electoral System   Key electoral mechanisms

Source: The Indian Express

Context: The article responds to the Election Commission of India (ECI) press note of September 26 concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and reported differences within the Commission.

• The author argues that the ECI’s clarifications themselves raise questions about procedural transparency, statutory compliance, electoral-roll revision and institutional accountability.
• Several of these are contested legal and political claims made by the author; the ECI has presented a different account, including that the SIR decisions were approved unanimously.

Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner

• Article 324(5) provides special protection to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC): removal is possible in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
• Under Article 124(4), removal of a Supreme Court judge requires an address by both Houses of Parliament, supported by the required special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• The article argues that impeachment is therefore intended for serious, proved misconduct, rather than ordinary errors or good-faith differences in interpretation.
• The ECI has a constitutional responsibility to maintain free and fair elections, making institutional independence, neutrality and procedural integrity central to its functioning. The Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of insulating the Commission from external influence.

Issue 1: Absence of Meeting Agendas and Minutes

• The ECI press note states that, going forward, agendas will be circulated in advance and minutes will be issued for Commission meetings.
• The author links this announcement to reported objections by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi regarding the absence of agendas and minutes for earlier meetings.
• The article argues that decisions concerning electoral-roll revision should have a clear institutional record of proposal, deliberation, decision and authorisation.
• The ECI, however, maintains that major SIR decisions, including the 2025 order and subsequent phases, received unanimous approval of the Commission.

Issue 2: Form 6 and the SIR Process

• Form 6 is the prescribed application form for inclusion of a person's name in the electoral roll as a new elector.
• The article alleges that changes made by the ECI to Form 6 for the SIR process were unauthorised, and that the subsequent decision to revert to the original form acknowledges the problem.
• It also argues that asking voters whose names had previously appeared on electoral rolls to apply as though they were first-time applicants could require them to make an inaccurate declaration.
• The ECI's position is that eligible electors left out during the process are being facilitated through Form 6; in Goa, the ECI reported that 81 of 97 identified electors had already filed Form 6.
• The legal question therefore concerns the interaction between electoral-roll revision procedures, prescribed statutory forms and the ECI's administrative authority.

Issue 3: ECINET and Electoral-Roll Technology

• The press note proposes a committee of experts to review ECINET and verify whether the platform complies with the relevant Acts and Rules.
• The article interprets this as raising questions about whether the technological infrastructure used for electoral-roll revision and deletion had been adequately verified for legal and procedural compliance.
• The broader governance issue is that digitisation cannot replace statutory authority: software systems used for electoral administration must operate within the powers and safeguards prescribed by election law.
• The ECI has also proposed greater operational flexibility for field-level election officials, although the article questions whether administrative flexibility can substitute for the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

Issue 4: Electoral Registration Officers and Appeals

• Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are the statutory authorities responsible for electoral-roll preparation and revision within their designated areas.
• The article questions whether EROs had adequate involvement in decisions implemented through the digital system and whether their statutory role was sufficiently preserved.
• It also raises the issue of over 16 lakh appeals reportedly filed against voters who had succeeded in getting their names restored in West Bengal, questioning who authorised the process.
• These concerns relate to a fundamental principle of electoral administration: inclusion, deletion and correction of names must follow legally prescribed procedures and provide affected electors with appropriate remedies.

Relevant Legal Framework

• Article 324: Vests the ECI with the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.
• Article 324(5): Provides special removal protection to the CEC; other Election Commissioners have a different statutory/constitutional protection framework.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides the principal statutory framework for electoral rolls, qualifications for registration and electoral registration machinery.
• Section 32(1), RPA 1950: The article invokes this provision, which deals with an election official being liable for an act or omission in breach of official duty without reasonable cause. Its application to particular officials would ultimately require determination through the appropriate legal process.

Anoop Baranwal Judgment: Institutional Independence

• In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court examined the constitutional framework governing appointments to the ECI and stressed the importance of independence and neutrality for conducting free and fair elections.
• The Court prescribed an interim selection mechanism involving the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted legislation.
• Parliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which altered the selection mechanism.
• The constitutional validity of the 2023 law is currently under judicial consideration; recent Supreme Court proceedings have produced differing judicial views on whether the matter requires consideration by a larger bench.

Principles Relevant to Electoral Institutions

• Independence: Decisions should be protected from inappropriate external influence.
• Impartiality: Electoral authorities must apply rules consistently to competing political interests and electors.
• Integrity: Decisions and procedures should withstand public and legal scrutiny.
• Transparency: Important institutional decisions should have adequate documentation and an auditable decision trail.
• Accountability: Constitutional autonomy must operate alongside compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
• Competence and diligence: Electoral administration requires accurate records, legally compliant procedures and timely grievance redressal.