Dissent Inside the Election Commission During the SIR: How Voter Lists Are Revised and How the Commission Decides
A recent investigation found that two of the three Election Commissioners put their objections in writing 14 times over about ten months (November to August). The objections were about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and how voter lists are managed.
One objection was about Form 6, the form a person fills to get their name added to the voter list. The form was changed to ask applicants to pick one of three statements about whether they were earlier on any voter list. The two Commissioners recorded that such a form is fixed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, so it cannot be changed without first changing those rules.
Another objection was about ECINet, the Commission's single digital platform, launched on 22 January 2026. It brought together more than 40 apps and websites. It also absorbed the older voter-list system, ERONet. The two Commissioners argued that control over the voter-list database had been moved to the centre, which cut down the powers of the Electoral Registration Officers in the districts. They also raised this with the Cabinet Secretary.
In West Bengal, 16.10 lakh appeals were filed asking for the deletion of voters whom judicial officers had allowed on the roll. The two Commissioners recorded that neither they nor the state's Chief Electoral Officer had been told the basis or process for filing these appeals.
In the West Bengal revision, about 27.16 lakh voters were declared ineligible after review by judicial officers. More than 22 lakh of them have appealed to appellate tribunals to get their names back. The Commission has proposed raising the number of tribunals to 42.
The Commission has said that differing views are a normal part of how a multi-member body discusses issues. It has said that the final decisions, including on the SIR, were taken unanimously by the full Commission.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
An electoral roll is the official list of voters for a constituency. Only people whose names are on this list can vote. A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a very detailed check of this list, in which it is rebuilt almost from scratch. Officials go from house to house, collect forms from every voter, and check who is eligible. The aim is to add every eligible person and remove names that should not be there.
The dispute is about how the SIR was run: changes to Form 6, central control of the voter database through ECINet, and appeals seeking deletions in West Bengal. Each of these touches a legal safeguard in this bridge: forms fixed by the 1960 Rules, the ERO's statutory role under Section 13B, and the right to notice, hearing and appeal before a name is removed.
Appointment and Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners
The Election Commission of India is led by a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and, at present, two other Election Commissioners (ECs). Article 324 of the Constitution says the President appoints them. How they are chosen, how long they serve, and how hard it is to remove them decide how independent the Commission is. The CEC has strong protection against removal, while the other ECs have somewhat less.
The written objections came from two of the three members of the Commission. Their security of tenure, protected by Article 324, lets Election Commissioners record disagreement without fear of losing their posts. This is why questions about how the Commission decides matter so much for its independence.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): The Multi-Member Election Commission
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India is a 1995 Supreme Court judgment that settled how a multi-member Election Commission should work. In October 1993, the government added two Election Commissioners, making the Commission a three-member body. The then CEC challenged this. The Supreme Court upheld the multi-member Commission and said the CEC is not above the other Commissioners in decision-making.
Under the Seshan ruling and Section 10, all three members share decision-making, and major decisions need at least a majority. The objections recorded by two of the three Commissioners, including their concern that some decisions were taken without their knowledge, raise exactly this question of how a multi-member Commission is meant to work. The Commission says its final decisions were unanimous.
- Written objections recorded by two of the three Election Commissioners: 14, over about 10 months (November to August)
- ECINet launched: 22 January 2026; brought together more than 40 apps and websites; absorbed ERONet's voter-list functions
- West Bengal: 16.10 lakh appeals filed seeking deletion of voters whom judicial officers had allowed on the roll
- West Bengal: about 27.16 lakh voters declared ineligible after review by judicial officers; more than 22 lakh have appealed; Commission proposed 42 appellate tribunals
- Legal basis of SIR: Article 324 and Section 21(3), RP Act, 1950
- Appeals against ERO orders: Section 24, RP Act, 1950 (first to the District Magistrate, second to the CEO)
- Forms 6, 7 and 8 are prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
- Supreme Court upheld the SIR in May 2026
- T.N. Seshan v. Union of India: 14 July 1995; majority decision under Section 10 of the 1991 Act