Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, reportedly recorded objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and administrative steps taken in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Their concerns covered voter registration and deletions, changes to the statutory Form 6, access and control of electoral-roll databases, and the handling of voter-related appeals.
The objections came amid the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which began in Bihar in June 2025 and has since affected more than 13 crore names in draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories. The ECI has acknowledged the internal notes but said differing views are a normal part of institutional decision-making and maintained that all decisions of the full Commission were unanimous.
What Did The Two Commissioners Object To?
According to an investigation by The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns on at least 14 occasions, including four objections on a single day. One major issue involved Form 6, the statutory form used by citizens to register as new voters. Joshi recorded in May that the form could not be changed without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with Sandhu concurring days later. However, a new SIR-related declaration subsequently appeared on the online form. Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.
The two Commissioners also questioned what they described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database in Delhi and sought safeguards to ensure that statutory election officials retained appropriate access. In July, they separately wrote to the Cabinet Secretary over changes to work allocation involving the Election Commission’s IT infrastructure. They said the changes had been made without informing or consulting them and invoked provisions of the 2023 law governing the Commission.
What Has The Election Commission Said?
The ECI responded on September 23 after the investigation was published, acknowledging the existence of the internal notes but characterising them as part of the normal deliberative process. “Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution,” the Commission said, adding that written notes, technical suggestions and internal checks were standard practices intended to improve electoral processes. It further stated that decisions and instructions issued over the past year, including those connected with electoral-roll revision and SIR, were unanimous decisions of the full Commission.
However, the Commission’s statement did not publicly explain how several specific concerns raised in the notes were resolved. These include the Form 6 change, questions surrounding electoral-roll software access, appeals relating to restored voters in West Bengal, and the period during which the full Commission reportedly did not meet. The Commission said its digital platforms operate under strict data-security protocols and that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continue to exercise their statutory powers.
The issue is significant because the ECI is a three-member constitutional body under Article 324. The 2023 law states that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously, while differences are to be settled by majority. The latest developments therefore centre not only on the individual objections but also on questions about transparency, accountability and how collective decision-making functions within an institution responsible for safeguarding the electoral process.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Elections ultimately affect every citizen, whether or not they follow political debates closely. When questions arise within an institution responsible for maintaining electoral rolls, what matters most is that concerns are addressed through transparent procedures, documented explanations and respectful institutional dialogue. Differences of opinion need not weaken public institutions when they are handled openly and constructively.
At the same time, citizens deserve clarity about how decisions affecting their right to vote are made and reviewed. As the ECI faces scrutiny over these reported objections, would greater transparency about its internal decision-making help strengthen public confidence in the electoral process?
Also Read: ‘While Trying to Make a Reel’ Bihar CM Samrat Choudhary’s Jamui Remark Goes Viral
