ECI Internal Dissent: Two Commissioners Raised 14 Objections Over SIR, Form 6 and Voter Database as Poll Panel Denies Rift

A high-stakes institutional controversy has unfolded at the Election Commission of India (ECI) after an investigative report revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded at least 14 written objections over a 10-month period. The documented dissents challenged critical decisions taken under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, spanning statutory modifications to voter-registration forms, centralized technological control over voter registries, and procedural protocols governing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). However, the Election Commission issued a direct rebuttal on September 23, 2026, formally dismissing claims of institutional fragmentation and maintaining that all statutory decisions, including the nationwide SIR exercise, were carried out with the unanimous approval of all three members.

The Core Friction: Form 6 Changes, ECINet, and Statutory Jurisdictions

According to investigative records, internal disagreements focused on procedural autonomy, technological centralisation, and the legal custody of the national electoral database:

• Unauthorised Amendments to Form 6: Under the nationwide SIR drive, a new declaration was integrated into Form 6 (the statutory form for new voter registration). It required first-time applicants to declare whether their name, or that of a parent or grandparent, was enrolled in the previous SIR list. Commissioner Vivek Joshi formally objected in May 2026, pointing out that statutory forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 cannot be modified without formal central government notification. On August 13, Commissioner Sandhu formally recorded a note classifying the alteration as 'unauthorised and illegal', demanding its immediate retraction to avoid disenfranchising eligible young citizens.
• Centralised Database Control via ECINet: Rolled out in January 2026 as the technological backbone for nationwide voter lists, ECINet drew scrutiny over centralized control concentrated at ECI headquarters in New Delhi. The two Commissioners warned that centralized software overrides eroded the statutory decision-making powers of ground-level Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Escalation to the Cabinet Secretary: The impasse reportedly extended beyond the commission chamber when Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi wrote separate letters to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan, raising serious concerns regarding work-allocation realignments that removed key supervisory layers over the IT directorate.

"All decisions of the Election Commission of India, including the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), have been unanimous and with the approval of both the Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner," confirmed official ECI sources in a statement to media networks.

Ground Anomalies: Goa and West Bengal Case Studies

The investigation cited specific regional case studies highlighting software-driven friction:

• The Goa Software Hurdle: In Goa, 97 eligible voters met all physical documentation requirements validated by the local Electoral Registration Officer under Supreme Court guidelines. However, due to centralized IT constraints on ECINet, the field officer's clearance could not be committed to the database, leaving them excluded from the final roll.
• The West Bengal Bulk Logins: In West Bengal, investigators discovered that 16 lakh voter deletion appeals were processed through a single officer credential, prompting internal inquiries regarding credential auditing and workflow verification.

Constitutional Framework: How Decisions Are Legally Settled

Operating under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI functions as a multi-member constitutional bench. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the law mandates:

1. The business of the Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously.
2. If the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, it shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.

Constitutional experts note that noting internal disagreements or alternative administrative viewpoints on file does not automatically render an enacted commission decision legally invalid unless a formal majority dissent overturns the administrative order. As the political debate unfolds, public scrutiny will focus on whether Nirvachan Sadan releases further documentary records clarifying how individual objections were resolved prior to final gazette orders.