ECI’s Course Correction: Accountability and Electoral Integrity

23 Oct 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Electoral System   Key electoral mechanisms

Source: The Indian Express

Context: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rolled back certain controversial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls following allegations of disenfranchisement and an investigation by The Indian Express.

• Central concern: Although corrective steps are welcome, questions remain about the legality of earlier decisions, the exclusion of eligible voters, administrative accountability and public trust in the electoral process.

ECI’s Corrective Measures

• Revision of Form 6: Changes made to Form 6, which were criticised as unauthorised, were withdrawn in States not undergoing SIR, addressing concerns about the legality of electoral enrolment procedures.
• Booth-level verification: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were directed to visit households of electors flagged for logical discrepancies and verify their eligibility.
• Technical scrutiny: Technical experts were engaged to examine whether ECINet, the ECI’s digital platform, complied with applicable laws.
• Re-enrolment of deleted voters: Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) were directed to organise camps in States where SIR had been completed, enabling eligible electors deleted earlier to seek re-enrolment through comparisons of pre- and post-SIR electoral rolls.
• Resumption of Special Summary Revision (SSR): The suspended SSR process was resumed to facilitate the enrolment of eligible voters, including first-time electors.
• Restrictions on Form 7: The ECI restricted the number of objections that can be filed using Form 7 amid allegations of its misuse to seek wrongful deletions.
• Machine-readable electoral rolls: The ECI accepted the long-standing demand of political parties for machine-readable copies of electoral rolls, improving accessibility and facilitating scrutiny.

Key Concerns and Alleged Irregularities

• Risk of disenfranchisement: The article questions how electors declared ineligible during SIR could subsequently qualify for enrolment, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of the verification process.
• Form 6 and legal liability: The existing Form 6 reportedly contains an undertaking that could expose applicants to criminal liability for false declarations. Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer sought changes to protect eligible applicants seeking re-enrolment.
• Unresolved appeals: The status of more than 16 lakh appeals in West Bengal remains unclear, according to the article, leaving questions about timely and effective grievance redress.
• Administrative burden: The exercise has imposed additional work on BLOs and generated anxiety among citizens, potentially diverting resources from routine electoral administration.
• Questionable necessity: The author argues that the expensive SIR exercise failed to demonstrate that it had effectively removed ineligible electors or increased enrolment of eligible voters beyond what ordinary revision could achieve.

Constitutional and Institutional Accountability

• Decision-making procedure: The article alleges unilateral amendments to Form 6 and software design choices that obstructed Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) from performing their statutory duties, raising questions about compliance with legally prescribed decision-making procedures.
• Role of the Supreme Court: The Court is expected to adjudicate challenges to the alleged irregularities. Its ruling could uphold the ECI’s decisions or invalidate them, with significant implications for affected electors and electoral administration.
• Accountability of Election Commissioners: The author raises questions about the responsibility of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) for decisions subsequently challenged as unlawful.
• Executive and parliamentary responsibility: The article questions whether the government and Parliament would respond appropriately if the Court finds that constitutional or statutory requirements were violated.
• Institutional credibility: Corrective action can restore confidence only if accompanied by transparent explanations, responsibility for errors and effective remedies for affected citizens.

Additional Constitutional Perspective

• Article 324: Vests the ECI with the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President, subject to the Constitution and applicable laws.
• Electoral registration framework: The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, provide the statutory framework for electoral-roll preparation, revision, inclusion and objections.
• Judicial review: The ECI’s constitutional status does not place its actions beyond judicial scrutiny. Courts can examine whether electoral authorities have acted within their legal powers and complied with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.

Way Forward

• Fix responsibility: Conduct an independent examination of disputed decisions, identify administrative or procedural failures and establish accountability wherever violations are proved.
• Ensure transparent enrolment: Publish clear verification criteria, provide accessible reasons for deletions and enable timely correction and appeal.
• Protect eligible voters: Simplify re-enrolment procedures, revise problematic forms and ensure that bona fide applicants are not deterred by disproportionate procedural or legal risks.
• Strengthen digital governance: Subject ECINet and related electoral software to legal, technical and procedural audits, ensuring that technology supports rather than obstructs statutory officials.
• Restore institutional trust: Ensure lawful collective decision-making, transparent communication and effective grievance redress while protecting the ECI’s independence from political interference.

Conclusion: Electoral integrity requires more than correcting administrative errors after public criticism. Transparent procedures, judicial accountability and effective voter protection are essential to ensure that electoral-roll revision strengthens democracy without compromising citizens’ right to vote.