India election commission faces fresh credibility test as two commissioners raise objections

India’s Election Commission is facing a fresh test of public confidence after an investigation reported that two of its three commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about how voter rolls and election data were being handled.

The revelations have put Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar under renewed political pressure, with opposition parties demanding his removal and questioning whether the poll body can still command confidence as it carries out a nationwide revision of the electoral register.

But the Election Commission disputes the suggestion of a breakdown within the institution.

It says disagreements during internal deliberations are normal and insists that all final decisions, including those linked to the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR), were approved unanimously by the full three-member commission.

The dispute therefore turns on a crucial question: were the objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi simply part of normal internal scrutiny, or do they point to deeper concerns about how electoral data is controlled?

What triggered the latest row?

An investigation by The Indian Express published on September 23 reported that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions concerning voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and the management of the electoral database.

The newspaper reported that, in some cases, the two commissioners said decisions had been taken without their knowledge.

Their concerns included changes to the statutory Form 6 used by people applying to become voters, access to the digital systems holding electoral-roll data and the handling of appeals involving deleted voters in West Bengal.

The report said the commissioners also raised concerns about what they described as the gradual centralisation of access to electoral-roll data.

In one instance, the two commissioners separately approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes to the allocation of responsibilities around the IT systems supporting the rolls.

The Indian Express said the objections were copied to Kumar and other senior election officials.

Neither Sandhu nor Joshi has publicly endorsed the newspaper’s characterisation of the exchanges as an institutional rupture.

The Election Commission pushes back

The Commission responded by saying that individual observations and disagreements are part of the deliberative process.

It said its officials are entitled to raise suggestions and concerns before decisions are finalised.

“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution,” the Commission said.

It added that focusing on selected internal notes over a 10-month period gave only part of the picture.

According to the ECI, it had introduced about 40 initiatives and electoral reforms during the period, and those decisions — including SIR — were ultimately approved unanimously by the full commission.

That position has been echoed by BJP leaders, who have accused opposition parties of trying to undermine the election authority.

BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra described the criticism as a political campaign against the commission and argued that differences during deliberations are evidence of institutional discussion rather than a failure of the system.

Why SIR is at the centre of the dispute

The controversy comes as India conducts a nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The stated objective is to clean up voter registers by identifying people who may have died, moved, been registered more than once or otherwise become ineligible.

The exercise began in Bihar in 2025 and has since expanded to other states and Union Territories.

According to The Indian Express, more than 13 crore names have been removed from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the exercise. That figure should not be read as 13 crore confirmed cases of permanently disenfranchised voters. The process includes names flagged for verification, and affected voters have avenues to seek restoration.

The scale of the exercise has nevertheless made the management of the electoral database a major political issue.

Form 6 dispute

One of the most specific concerns reported by The Indian Express involves Form 6, which new voters use to apply for registration.

The report said a new declaration was added to the online form requiring applicants to indicate whether they or their parents or grandparents appeared on an earlier electoral roll.

Joshi reportedly questioned the legality of changing the statutory form without first amending the relevant rules. Sandhu later recorded his agreement and called for the change to be removed.

The issue matters because first-time voters who cannot establish a connection with an older electoral roll could face an additional hurdle when seeking registration.

The ECI, however, maintains that its electoral processes follow the law and that its final decisions were unanimously approved.

West Bengal provides another flashpoint

West Bengal has become one of the most closely watched parts of the SIR exercise.

The Election Commission told India's Supreme Court this month that 27.16 lakh voters had been removed during the revision and that more than 22 lakh of them had appealed for reinstatement.

Overall, more than 38 lakh appeals were filed, including applications seeking the restoration of names and others challenging the inclusion of voters.

The scale of the appeals illustrates why disputes over voter-list management have become politically sensitive.

Opposition parties have alleged that deletions could affect their supporters. The Election Commission has rejected claims that SIR was designed to influence election outcomes, and the reported objections from within the commission do not by themselves establish that voters were deliberately removed for partisan reasons.

Opposition turns up the pressure

The latest report has given India's opposition parties fresh grounds to attack the election commission.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP and the Election Commission of what he called “vote chori” — vote theft — and described the alleged conduct as an attack on India's constitutional system.

Other opposition leaders have called for Kumar to resign or face action. Some have also demanded that elections conducted after SIR be reviewed.

Those are political demands, not findings that have been established by a court or by an independent investigation.

The BJP has rejected the allegations and defended the commission.

A credibility problem bigger than one disagreement

The significance of the latest dispute goes beyond whether two commissioners disagreed with their chairman.

The Election Commission is responsible for maintaining the electoral rolls on which India's elections depend. Questions about who can add, delete or restore a voter's name therefore go directly to public confidence in the electoral process.

The unusual feature this time is that the concerns reported by The Indian Express came from inside the three-member commission itself.

At the same time, the public record shows that the three commissioners continued to appear together at official briefings. India Today reported that they held several joint briefings during the same period in which the internal objections were recorded.

That makes the picture more complicated than a simple public split.

For now, two versions of events are competing.

The Indian Express investigation points to repeated recorded objections over the handling of voter data and electoral-roll procedures.

The Election Commission says those exchanges were normal internal checks and that the final decisions were unanimous.

The real test will be whether the commission can provide enough information to answer the concerns over voter registration, database access and deletions — and reassure voters that the system is both secure and independently administered.

For an institution whose authority depends heavily on public trust, that explanation may matter as much as the political arguments surrounding it.

Category: International

About the Author

Maureen Onyango is a journalist passionate about storytelling, life coaching and spiritual lessons. She studied at the Kenya Institute of Management and enjoys telling stories that inform, inspire and empower communities.