'All Decisions Taken Unanimously': Election Commission on Dissent Allegations
<p>Election Commission issues detailed response to internal dissent and legal concerns over SIR and Form 6.</p>
advertisement
The Election Commission of India has issued a formal statement addressing recent reports of internal dissent and legal objections raised by two of its three commissioners regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, changes to Form 6, and the centralisation of the voter database. The Commission asserted that all decisions in the past year, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously and in accordance with statutory procedures.
According to Hindustan Times, the Election Commission described differing views and observations as a normal part of institutional deliberation, emphasising that written notes, technical suggestions, and internal checks are standard practices to ensure transparency and legal compliance. The Commission stated, “All actions of ECI have been in accordance with laws and instructions of the Commission.”
As reported by Deccan Herald, the Commission highlighted that over the past year, it has introduced around 40 new initiatives and reforms, including the nationwide SIR exercise. The statement reiterated that all official orders and administrative directions carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
As noted in an article by The Indian Express, the Commission responded to investigative reports by stating, “Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture.” The Commission maintained that all recent decisions were outcomes of unanimous agreement among the three commissioners.
“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken,” the Commission stated.
Coverage revealed that Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions and orders, including those related to new voter registration, deletion and restoration of voters, and the management of the electoral roll database. These objections were documented and communicated to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Commission addressed concerns about the centralisation of the voter database, stating that its digital platforms, including ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering or manipulation as details emerged. Statutory authorities such as Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continue to function under their legal powers for registration and deletion of voters.
Objections to changes in Form 6, which is used for new voter registrations, were also raised by the two commissioners, who labelled the changes “illegal” and “unauthorised.” Reporting indicated that despite these objections, the altered form remained in use, requiring applicants to answer questions about their or their relatives’ presence in previous electoral rolls before submission.
“The changes must be removed immediately so that young and would-be first time voters, who are otherwise eligible, can register themselves as voters as per law, without any harassment,” Commissioner Sandhu wrote in his objection.
In response to the legal concerns, the Commission reiterated that all actions and changes were outcomes of the full Commission’s decisions and that operational queries raised during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights according to official statements.
Analysis showed that the Commission’s defence against allegations of centralisation and procedural lapses rests on the assertion that all statutory requirements and internal processes were followed, and that the institution remains committed to its constitutional mandate in recent commentary.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.