India’s electoral system depends on an institution whose constitutional responsibility is much larger than merely conducting polling. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is entrusted with the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President.
A recent controversy involving the Election Commission has brought renewed attention to the functioning of this constitutional body. According to a report published by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions related to electoral rolls, Form 6, database access and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The report said the two Commissioners had raised objections on record at least 14 times over a 10-month period.
The Election Commission, however, subsequently said that decisions taken by the Commission, including those relating to SIR, had the approval of all three Commissioners and described the reported concerns as operational queries, inputs and suggestions arising during the draft stages of decision-making.
The controversy therefore raises a broader constitutional question: How should an independent constitutional election authority function when its members disagree on matters directly affecting electoral administration?
What Is the Election Commission of India?
The Election Commission of India is a permanent constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution. It was established on 25 January 1950, a date now observed as National Voters’ Day.
The Commission currently consists of:
- The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)
- Two Election Commissioners
The ECI conducts elections to:
- Lok Sabha
- Rajya Sabha
- State Legislative Assemblies
- President of India
- Vice-President of India
Elections to Panchayats and Municipalities are conducted by separate State Election Commissions.
The constitutional position of the ECI is therefore distinct from an ordinary government department. Its responsibility goes to the heart of India’s representative democratic system.
Article 324 and the Powers of the ECI
Article 324 is the constitutional foundation of the Election Commission.
It vests in the Commission the “superintendence, direction and control” of:
- Preparation of electoral rolls;
- Elections to Parliament;
- Elections to State Legislatures;
- Elections to the offices of President and Vice-President.
The constitutional framework is supplemented by election legislation, particularly the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951.
The breadth of Article 324 gives the ECI an important constitutional role in ensuring that elections are administered according to law.
The Commission itself describes its constitutional mandate as extending across the entire election process.
Why Electoral Rolls Matter
An election begins long before voting day.
A voter must first be correctly included in the electoral roll. Consequently, the preparation, revision, correction, addition and deletion of names are fundamental parts of the electoral process.
This is why disputes concerning voter databases and electoral-roll revisions are constitutionally significant.
The current controversy has particularly focused on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
According to The Indian Express, the internal objections related to issues including:
- addition of new voters;
- deletion and restoration of names;
- appeals against electoral-roll decisions;
- changes to Form 6; and
- control and access to electoral-roll databases.
What Is Special Intensive Revision?
Electoral rolls require periodic updating because voters may:
- reach the age of eligibility;
- change residence;
- die;
- have duplicate entries;
- require corrections in their details; or
- otherwise become eligible or ineligible for inclusion.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a more extensive exercise aimed at revisiting electoral rolls.
According to the recent Indian Express investigation, the national rollout of SIR followed an exercise that began in Bihar in 2025 and subsequently expanded to other States and Union Territories.
The controversy arises because electoral-roll revision involves a delicate balance.
On one side is the need to maintain accurate and clean electoral rolls.
On the other is the need to ensure that eligible citizens are not wrongly excluded from voting.
Therefore, procedures for inclusion, deletion, verification and appeal become extremely important.
The Form 6 Controversy
One of the major issues highlighted in the recent reporting concerns Form 6, which is used for new voter registration.
According to The Indian Express, a new declaration relating to the previous SIR was added to Form 6. Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi reportedly objected in May, stating that the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant electoral rules. Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently concurred with that position.
The report further said that Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and sought its removal.
These are reported internal objections, rather than a judicial finding that the change was legally invalid.
The Election Commission’s response is also relevant. It said that the reported concerns related to draft-stage processes and maintained that decisions ultimately taken by the Commission were unanimous.
This difference in accounts demonstrates why institutional transparency becomes important when constitutional authorities face internal disagreement.
The Question of Centralisation of Electoral Data
Another important issue concerns the technological infrastructure used for maintaining electoral rolls.
The Election Commission has increasingly integrated its digital systems, including through ECINet, which was launched as a technology backbone bringing together multiple applications and portals.
According to The Indian Express, Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns about what they described as the gradual centralisation of electoral-roll databases and the access available to officials working at the State and local levels.
The concern is significant because electoral rolls are ultimately administered through a hierarchy of officials, including Electoral Registration Officers.
Digital centralisation can potentially improve:
- consistency;
- data security;
- standardisation;
- monitoring; and
- prevention of unauthorised manipulation.
At the same time, questions may arise regarding:
- who has access to the database;
- who can make changes;
- whether local statutory officers can implement their decisions;
- audit trails;
- accountability for technological errors; and
- mechanisms for correcting mistakes.
The Election Commission has defended its digital systems, saying that security protocols are designed to prevent unauthorised tampering and manipulation.
Thus, the issue is not simply whether electoral technology should be centralised, but how technological control should coexist with statutory responsibility and institutional accountability.
The Goa Example and the Importance of Local Authority
The recent reporting also highlighted an example from Goa in which 97 voters were reportedly affected by software-related problems that prevented local election officials from recording eligibility decisions.
This illustrates an important principle of digital governance.
Technology is intended to assist legal and administrative decision-making. It should not unintentionally prevent an authorised statutory officer from implementing a decision that the law permits that officer to make.
Where technology becomes a mandatory gateway for exercising a legal power, questions concerning software design, access control, auditability and accountability become questions of public law as well.
What Does the 2023 Election Commission Act Say?
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 provides the statutory framework governing the appointment, service conditions and functioning of the Election Commission.
A particularly important provision for the current controversy is Section 18.
It provides that the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate its procedure and allocation of business.
It further provides that, as far as possible, the business of the Commission should be transacted unanimously. Where the CEC and other Election Commissioners differ in opinion, the matter is to be decided according to the majority.
This provision is important because it establishes two principles:
First: consensus is preferred.
Second: disagreement does not automatically prevent the Commission from taking a decision; the statute provides for decision by majority.
Therefore, disagreement among Election Commissioners is not itself unconstitutional or unlawful. The more important questions concern how disagreement is recorded, how decisions are made, whether statutory procedures are followed and whether the institution remains transparent and accountable.
The CEC Is Not the Election Commission Alone
The constitutional structure also requires attention to the institutional position of the three Commissioners.
The Election Commission is a collegial constitutional body. The current statutory framework provides for the CEC and other Election Commissioners, and Section 18 expressly provides for majority decision-making where disagreement occurs.
This means that the legal question cannot simply be reduced to whether the CEC agrees with the other Commissioners.
Instead, the relevant institutional questions include:
- Was the matter placed before the Commission?
- Were all Commissioners given an opportunity to express their views?
- Was the decision recorded?
- Was the statutory procedure followed?
- Was the decision supported by the required majority?
- Was the decision communicated appropriately?
- Are adequate records available for institutional accountability?
These questions are particularly important because the decisions of the ECI can directly affect citizens’ ability to participate in elections.
The Anoop Baranwal Judgment
The institutional independence of the Election Commission has also been considered by the Supreme Court.
In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court addressed the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners and emphasised the importance of insulating the electoral process from executive influence.
The Court issued directions concerning a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, pending parliamentary legislation.
Parliament subsequently enacted the 2023 Act, which established a statutory selection mechanism.
Under the present framework, therefore, the appointment process must be examined under the law enacted by Parliament, rather than solely through the interim mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal.
The judgment nevertheless remains important for understanding the constitutional importance of independence and neutrality in election administration.
Removal and Security of Tenure
The Constitution also provides special protection concerning the removal of the CEC.
The CEC can be removed in a manner similar to a Judge of the Supreme Court, while an Election Commissioner can be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the CEC, as provided by Article 324(5).
Such safeguards are designed to provide institutional security to the election authority.
The underlying constitutional principle is that an election authority must be able to perform its functions without being vulnerable to arbitrary removal because of decisions taken in the course of its duties.
Why Independence of the ECI Matters
The Election Commission occupies a unique position.
It regulates an electoral process in which competing political parties and candidates participate.
Therefore, public confidence in the institution depends not only on whether elections are conducted on time but also on whether the procedures are perceived as lawful, transparent, consistent and institutionally independent.
The Commission’s own official framework recognises its role in conducting elections in accordance with the Constitution and electoral laws.
Institutional independence, however, does not mean that the Commission should operate without scrutiny.
A constitutional institution can remain independent while being subject to:
- judicial review;
- statutory requirements;
- parliamentary accountability;
- transparency mechanisms;
- audit and record-keeping;
- public scrutiny; and
- legal challenges by affected persons.
Electoral Integrity and Digital Governance
The recent controversy also demonstrates how electoral administration is increasingly dependent on technology.
Earlier, questions about election administration largely concerned ballot papers, polling stations and physical electoral rolls.
Today, electoral integrity also involves:
Databases → Software → Access Controls → Digital Authentication → Data Security → Audit Trails
A technical error in an electoral database can potentially have consequences comparable to an administrative error.
This makes algorithmic and technological accountability increasingly important in election administration.
Every significant electoral system should ideally have mechanisms for:
- recording who made a change;
- identifying when the change occurred;
- preserving previous versions;
- reviewing disputed changes;
- correcting erroneous entries; and
- ensuring that authorised officers retain the powers assigned to them by law.
The Larger Constitutional Issue
The current controversy should therefore not be viewed only as an argument between individuals within the Election Commission.
It raises a larger question about institutional design in a constitutional democracy.
Three principles are particularly relevant:
1. Electoral accuracy
Electoral rolls should be accurate and updated so that eligible voters can participate and fraudulent or duplicate entries can be addressed through lawful procedures.
2. Electoral inclusion
The process of revision must provide adequate safeguards so that eligible citizens are not excluded without notice, verification and an opportunity to challenge the decision.
3. Institutional accountability
The authority responsible for elections must have transparent procedures, clear decision-making structures and appropriate mechanisms for correcting administrative or technological errors.
These objectives must operate together.
What the Present Controversy Tells Us
The reported disagreement within the Commission and the Commission’s subsequent response present two different aspects of the issue.
The reported objections highlight concerns about Form 6, electoral-roll data, SIR procedures and the role of Commissioners in decision-making.
The Commission’s response states that the decisions ultimately taken, including SIR-related decisions, were approved unanimously and that the concerns raised were part of the normal draft-stage process.
The appropriate constitutional response is therefore not to assume that either account automatically establishes the complete legal position.
Instead, the relevant questions are matters for documentary records, statutory interpretation, judicial scrutiny where applicable, and transparent institutional explanation.
Conclusion
The Election Commission of India is not merely an administrative agency conducting elections. It is a constitutional institution entrusted with protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
The recent controversy surrounding the CEC, the two Election Commissioners, SIR, Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll technology has consequently drawn attention to issues that go beyond an internal institutional disagreement.
The central questions concern how electoral rolls are prepared, who can modify them, how technological systems interact with statutory authorities, how disagreements within the Commission are resolved, and what safeguards protect eligible voters from wrongful exclusion.
The legal framework already provides important institutional mechanisms. Article 324 establishes the constitutional authority of the ECI, while the 2023 Act provides a framework for its functioning and expressly provides for majority decision-making when Commissioners disagree.
Ultimately, confidence in an electoral institution depends on more than the conduct of polling day. It also depends on the transparency of the processes that determine who is entitled to vote, how electoral information is maintained, how decisions are recorded, and how citizens can challenge errors.
In an increasingly digital electoral system, maintaining public confidence will require the Election Commission to combine constitutional independence with procedural transparency, technological accountability and effective safeguards for voters.
