EC papers over objections within, presents united front in SC affidavit on SIR

Why in the News

Two of the three Election Commissioners objected in fourteen notes to steps taken in the Commission’s name, but those notes are now described as part of a consultative process, not dissent. In an affidavit approved by all three members, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a house-to-house re-verification of electoral rolls, is legal. It does not explain why two members learnt of decisions only afterwards.

What is the dispute inside the Election Commission?

1. What it is: The ECI is a multi-member body of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners. It works like a three-member board, where each member should know what is done in its name.
2. The notes: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote most notes after the fact, recording that they had not been told of decisions, systems, orders or cases.
3. The affidavit’s answer: Replying to a social activist’s petition, the ECI says individual commissioners’ suggestions and queries are not decisions of the Commission, and calls the allegations “misconceived”.
4. The takeaway: The Commission has explained how its decisions are formally taken, not whether two members were actually consulted.

How does the affidavit say the Commission decides?

1. File movement: Files go first to one Election Commissioner, then the other, and finally to the CEC. Approved decisions carry all three signatures, and the ECI Secretariat implements them.
2. Unanimity and majority: The statute recognises that decisions should preferably be unanimous, though some may be taken by majority.
3. SIR orders: The three orders scheduling the SIR, starting with that of 24 June 2025, were issued on unanimous decisions.
4. Work allocation order: The two Commissioners wrote to the Cabinet Secretary about a work allocation order issued by a senior Deputy Election Commissioner. The ECI says it was never implemented.

What does the affidavit say about Form 6 and “mapping”?

1. Form 6: Form 6 is the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll. Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, only the Central Government can amend it.
2. The declaration: The ECI calls the claim of a Form 6 amendment “misleading”. Only the Additional Declaration annexed to it under the SIR orders was changed.
3. “Mapping”: The declaration asks applicants for their own, parents’ or grandparents’ entries in the 2002/2003 SIR rolls. Those who supply them need not file further documents.
4. Online display: The ECI concedes the online display “could be construed” as amending Form 6. Its Electoral Rolls (ER) Division decided on 21 October to separate the two.
5. Members’ objections: In May, Joshi recorded that Form 6 could not change without amending the Rules, and Sandhu concurred. Sandhu later called the July online change “unauthorised/ illegal”.

Who controls the electoral roll on ECINet?

1. ECINet: ECINet is the Commission’s IT platform for electoral roll work. No entry changes except by order of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), the official legally responsible for the roll.
2. IT team’s duty: The ECINet team must let EROs work without hitches.
3. Review committee: Experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mumbai and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bengaluru will review the platform’s legal compliance and vet new modules.
4. Earlier proposal: Joshi proposed such a committee on 29 May, warning of “the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”. The affidavit does not mention this.

Challenges

1. Unexplained approval: The affidavit does not say who approved the July online change, made after two of three members objected in writing.
2. Software overriding EROs: In February the software did not let Goa’s EROs reverse deletions, despite eight requests in seven days.
3. Appeals filed unseen: West Bengal election officers filed appeals against voter restorations without bringing them to the Commission.

Way Forward

1. Recorded approvals: The Commission should record who approves each SIR step and IT change.
2. Prior sign-off on IT modules: New ECINet modules should reach all three members before deployment.
3. Written delegation: The Commission should define which actions officers may take in its name without referring to members.

Conclusion

The Commission now speaks with one voice before the Supreme Court, but its account settles the formal process, not the record of members bypassed in practice. Whether its corrective steps answer the specific questions in the two Commissioners’ notes is what the Court must now weigh.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”