The Election Commission of India (ECI), entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of electoral process, is facing mounting questions over its decision-making, transparency and accountability. Far from resolving the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court has opened fresh fronts of scrutiny – from alleged dissent within the Commission and unexplained changes to voter-registration forms to concerns over electoral databases and the filing of lakhs of appeals without the knowledge of the Election Commissioners.
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: who is making decisions that could determine whether millions of citizens remain on electoral rolls, and under what authority?
An affidavit filed by the ECI on Oct. 26, following investigative reports by The Indian Express, has failed to settle concerns about how SIR decisions were made and implemented. Instead, petitioners and transparency activists have identified what they describe as implied admissions, contradictions and critical gaps in the Commission’s explanation.
At a press conference in Delhi on Oct. 29, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj,analyst Yogendra Yadav and activist Neha Bora dissected the 24-page affidavit, arguing that it raised more questions than it answered.
The Supreme Court has been asked to ensure that all records and decisions concerning SIR are preserved and made available for judicial scrutiny. On Oct. 27, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant told petitioners seeking preservation of the records that the court would ‘examine everything’. The matter was listed for hearing in mid-November.The petitioners include Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocate S. Prasanna.
The Congress describedthe ECI’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court as ‘deceptive, deceitful and duplicitous. It is also extremely damaging – to itself’.“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.And when we have done it for a while, it comes out in a crooked style,” it added.
The stakes extend beyond administrative procedure to the constitutional right to vote. So far 13.35 crore names from the voter list havebeen deleted. As The Hindu editor Suresh Nambath observed in a comment cited in the debate, “A dead voter left on the roll is a clerical error. A living voter who is struck off loses their constitutional right.”
Electoral rolls must be accurate, but the pursuit of accuracy cannot justify excluding eligible voters through opaque procedures or inadequately explained decisions.
Was SIR Really Unanimous?
One of the most significant questions concerns the ECI’s claim that key SIR decisions were unanimous despite objections reportedly recorded by Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.
The affidavit acknowledges their objections but reportedly characterises them as suggestions or differences of opinion. It maintains that three SIR-related orders, dated June 24, 2025, Oct. 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were adopted unanimously.
However, this account appears difficult to reconcile with an earlier response by the ECI’s Principal Secretary under the RTI Act, which stated, “The Commission has so far not taken any decision on initiating SIR across the country in 2025.”
The discrepancy demands clarification. If the decision had already been taken, where are the records? If not, what authority and decision-making process enabled the subsequent nationwide exercise?The existence of objections does not, by itself, invalidate a decision or establish that unanimity was impossible. But describing them as differences of opinion cannot substitute for documentary evidence.The petitioners want the ECI to disclose the relevant decisions, minutes, file notings and approvals. These records are essential to establish the chain of authority behind an exercise affecting millions of voters.
Revoked Order Raises Questions
The affidavit also acknowledges that a work-allocation order issued on July 28, 2026, by an IAS officer of Additional Secretary rank serving on deputation was revoked following a joint direction from the two Election Commissioners on July 30.The circumstances surrounding the order remain unexplained. Who authorised it? What was its purpose? Why was it revoked two days later? Was an inquiry conducted?
The episode raises questions about whether the officer acted independently or under instructions from a superior authority. If the order was issued without proper authorisation, the Commission must explain how this happened. If it was issued on someone else’s instructions, the authority behind those directions should be identified.The affidavit’s acknowledgement of the reversal makes a fuller explanation more necessary, not less.
ECINet and Control Over Voter Data
Another major concern involves ECINet, the digital system associated with electoral services and electoral information.The two Election Commissioners had reportedly flagged the ‘gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database’ and proposed an audit to ensure that ‘no one, except the concerned statutory authorities, has credentials to make any change in the (voter) database’.The concern is fundamental. If electoral rolls can be altered through a centralised digital system, the ECI must demonstrate that access is restricted, changes are authorised and every modification leaves an auditable record.
The affidavit states that a high-level committee was constituted on Oct. 14, 2026, to examine ECINet’s compliance with applicable laws and rules. It reportedly includes senior Deputy Election Commissioners, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent experts from IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
While the committee’s formation acknowledges the need for examination, it does not answer the questions that prompted demands for an audit. The affidavit reportedly acknowledges alterations by an operating authority without identifying the authority or explaining the circumstances.
Who made the changes, when were they made and under whose authorisation? Were they recorded in an audit trail? Could anyone other than competent statutory authorities modify electoral data?
The Goa episode adds another concern. According to the affidavit, voters who needed restoration to the rolls could not be reinstated through the relevant process and were instead required to submit Form 6.If names were wrongly removed and the restoration mechanism could not correct the error, why were affected voters forced to submit fresh applications? What happened to records establishing their previous enrolment?
The committee’s terms of reference, findings and technical audit should be made available for public and judicial scrutiny.
Sixteen Lakh Appeals?
The filing of approximately 16 lakh appeals in West Bengal against the inclusion of voters has raised further questions.According to the affidavit, the appeals were filed by officers from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, and the matter was not brought to the Commission’s attention. Election Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu had reportedly raised a similar objection, noting that neither they nor the state CEO had been informed about the basis or process through which the appeals were filed.Who instructed the officers to file the appeals? Who approved the legal strategy? Were the cases individually examined or generated through an automated process?
The issue is not whether electoral decisions can be challenged through lawful channels. It is whether litigation involving such a large number of voters was initiated through an authorised process known to the competent authorities.
Form 6 Changes
Perhaps the most consequential controversy concerns Form 6, the prescribed application for inclusion in electoral rolls.The affidavit acknowledges that an additional declaration was incorporated into the online form. It also refers to decisions requiring correction because they were not aligned with the steps approved by the Commission. These admissions have renewed questions about the legal authority under which the form and its accompanying declaration were changed during SIR.
Ithas beentraced tochanges to the form since SIR began in Bihar in June 2025.Before that, Form 6 was used by new electors seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. Applicants supplied information concerning age and ordinary residence, with alternative supporting documents permitted in certain circumstances.
During Bihar’s SIR, the Commission reportedly allowed Form 6 to be used both by new voters and by those who had failed to submit enumeration forms within the prescribed period. In a subsequent phase, the online application process was reportedly changed further. Applicants could not proceed without supplying details of their parents from the previous SIR.The legal question is whether these additional requirements were introduced in accordance with the statutory framework.
Former CEC O.P. Rawat has argued that changes to Form 6 must be examined in the context of the Act and the rules.Rawat noted that Rule 13 prescribes Form 6 for applications seeking inclusion in electoral rolls and that the existing form did not contain the requirement to provide parents’ details in the manner described.
Former West Bengal CEO and former Trinamool Congress MP Jawhar Sircar has also questioned the Commission’s approach, arguing that a constitutional body must explain when and why it exercises powers that may intrude into another institution’s jurisdiction.
The controversy has been compounded by apparently inconsistent statements about the additional declaration. In a press note issued last month, the ECI reportedly said the declaration attached to Form 6 had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Its latest affidavit, however, is said to maintain that the declaration is not part of Form 6.If the declaration is separate from the prescribed form, what is its legal status? Under what authority was it introduced, and on what basis is it mandatory?
Supreme Court’s Approval?
The ECI has cited the Supreme Court’s earlier consideration of SIR and its documentation framework to support its approach. However, judicial recognition of the Commission’s power to conduct SIR does not necessarily validate every instruction issued during implementation.In its earlier judgment upholding the constitutionality of SIR, the Supreme Court recognised that the existing documentation framework might not be capable of literal application in every situation. It also indicated that the Commission had some authority to devise a framework suited to the exercise.
That authority, however, was not unlimited. The Court emphasised that the ECI had to remain within the statutory framework and that departures required a rational connection with the objective being pursued.
The affidavit’s explanation of decision-making in urgent situations has also left important questions unanswered.It states that when immediate orders are necessary and the CEC or Election Commissioners cannot be physically present, approval may be obtained electronically and subsequently recorded in official files.The RTI response stating that no decision to initiate nationwide SIR had been taken in 2025 makes these questions particularly pressing.
The affidavit also does not clearly establish whether disciplinary or other action has been initiated against officials whose actions were allegedly taken without proper authorisation. Its statement that action would be taken if such instances came to the Commission’s notice does not clarify whether responsibility has already been examined.
Transparency is Indispensable to Electoral Credibility
The SIR controversy has brought together a series of concerns that cannot be addressed in isolation.Theobjections within the Commission, a revoked work-allocation order, centralised access to electoral data, appeals filed without the Election Commissioners’ knowledge and changes to Form 6.
Amrita Johri of Satark Nagrik Sangathan told Radiance that changing procedures had been accompanied by a lack of clear information about how many allegedly ineligible entrants were identified, how many first-time voters were enrolled and how many people were restored after wrongful deletion.
Against this backdrop, the immediate priority is to make the relevant records public, clarify the legal basis for changes to Form 6, disclose the findings of the ECINet review and explain who authorised the filing of appeals in West Bengal.
To restore public confidence, the ECI must address the questions raised by its own affidavit with documentary evidence and clear legal reasoning, rather than relying solely on assurances that due process was followed.
Meanwhile, a year after the ECI identified the removal of ‘foreign illegal immigrants’ as one of SIR’s objectives that only 1,600 names were identified as foreign nationals across six states with a combined electorate of around 9.86 crore. Congress leaderJairam Ramesh took a dig at theHome Minister who had said that SIR had a 3D objective: to detect, delete and deport infiltrators so as to ‘purify’ the electoral rolls.
What has SIR Actually Accomplished?
In the six states of Karnataka, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Kerala, Goa and Mizoram, just 1600 foreigners belonging to different countries have been ‘detected and deleted’. Nearly 10 crore people went through the SIR in these states – to find 1600 ‘foreigners’.
The other 20 states and UTs did not provide data because the ECI had not asked for any such data to be collected. Clearly the Home Minister was lying.In Karnataka, where 99.7 lakh names have been deleted, 716 foreign nationals were identified of whom 545 are from Nepal.This only proves what has been evident all along: that SIR was always intended for ensuring that very large sections of Indians have their constitutional right to vote snatched away.
The Opposition alleged that SIR was a conspiracy designed by the PM-HM duo and executed by the CEC through various means, including ECINET.