Election Commission Defends Unanimous Decisions Amid Voter Roll Criticism

The Election Commission of India (ECI) told the Supreme Court on 26 October 2026 that all three orders behind the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimous decisions of its three members. That directly contradicts a September report that the two Election Commissioners had objected on record 14 times. The Court has not ruled. On 27 October it adjourned the case to 17 November and gave petitioners 10 days to reply.

What the ECI said. The nearly 250-page counter-affidavit was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu. It says Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi together approved the SIR orders of 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026. The affidavit itself, it says, was approved unanimously by all three.

What it denied. The ECI rejected the claim that the CEC acted alone over his colleagues’ objections. It called the petitions untenable because they rely on a single newspaper report. It also denied amending Form 6, the statutory voter-registration form. It said the extra SIR declaration was a separate document, and that from 21 October 2026 the online system shows the two separately.

Why it matters. The SIR has removed roughly 13 crore names from draft rolls across about 30 states and UTs. It is the largest revision of India’s voter lists since 2002–04. Whether its orders were lawfully made by the full Commission now sits with the Supreme Court.

Background: what the SIR is

The SIR is a door-to-door rebuild of each state’s voter list. Booth Level Officers hand every listed voter a pre-filled enumeration form. A voter whose form does not come back is left off the draft roll and must then reapply. Voters may be asked to link themselves or a parent to the last intensive revision of 2002–04, or to show one of 12 documents. The ECI draws the power from Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The three orders the affidavit defends:

Only Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are still to be covered.

The Supreme Court has already upheld the SIR itself. On 27 May 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that the ECI has the power to run it under Article 324 and the RPA. The Court said the ECI may inquire into citizenship for the limited purpose of the roll, but cannot finally decide it. It required notice, a hearing and a written order before any final deletion, and accepted Aadhaar as proof of identity only. The current case is different: it asks whether the Commission’s own decisions were lawfully taken.

The numbers: who left the rolls

Across the three phases, about 13 crore names were dropped from draft rolls. In Phase 2 alone, final rolls ended 5.18 crore lower than before the exercise, a fall of 10.2%.

ECI and state CEO figures as compiled by WellthRise (Oct 2026); state figures rounded, so state percentages may not match exact counts

The cuts shrink between draft and final roll as voters reclaim their place. Karnataka’s draft dropped 1.07 crore names; the final roll added back 8.64 lakh. In Bihar, 21.53 lakh were added back after claims. The ECI classifies removals as dead, shifted, duplicate or absent. Critics argue that many “absent” voters are living, eligible people who missed the form. No full, verified breakdown has been published.

The criticism

The Indian Express report (September 2026). The newspaper reported that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections 14 times in 10 months, saying several decisions were taken without their knowledge. The objections reportedly covered new-voter registration, deletion and restoration of electors, appeals against inclusion, and custody of the rolls. In one note Sandhu reportedly called an action unauthorised and illegal, taken against the written advice of both commissioners. Both commissioners also reportedly wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan objecting to a reallocation of work that reduced their oversight of the digital roll systems.

The Form 6 dispute. In July 2026 an extra question was added to the online voter-registration process asking whether the applicant or a parent appeared on a post-SIR roll. Critics said this effectively amended a statutory form without legal authority and hurt first-time voters most. On 29 September the ECI ordered a special drive in 20 states to re-enrol left-out voters using the plain Form 6.

The political response. Congress held nationwide protests on 25 September demanding the CEC’s resignation. Leaders including Mamata Banerjee, Mallikarjun Kharge, Arvind Kejriwal and Uddhav Thackeray called for his removal, and opposition parties discussed an impeachment notice in Parliament. On 12 October, INDIA bloc leaders filed a petition seeking a retired-judge-led audit of deletions, booth-wise publication of deleted names with reasons, and suspension of the SIR. The Cockroach Janta Party, a youth movement, staged street protests demanding the same resignation.

Still unanswered. Transparency activist Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra filed an RTI request for copies of the commissioners’ recorded dissent. As of 29 October, the ECI had not replied within the 30-day statutory limit, according to The Wire.

The ex-Law Minister’s view. Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar said on 27 October that the Court must decide whether the affidavit is enough to prove unanimity. He said it must also decide whether the commissioners’ earlier objections were withdrawn or simply set aside, and whether the extra declaration changes Form 6 in substance.

The Commission’s defence

How decisions are supposed to be made. The ECI is a three-member body. Under the law governing it, business is to be transacted unanimously where possible and by majority where the members differ. A CEC acting over the written objection of both colleagues would therefore raise a legal question. That is why the unanimity claim sits at the centre of the case.

The ECI’s position. The affidavit makes four main points:

•         All three SIR orders and the affidavit itself carried the approval of all three members.

•         Internal technical notes and written queries are a routine part of how a multi-member body works. They are not dissent from the final decision.

•         The petitions rest only on a newspaper report with no independent verification, so they should be dismissed.

•         Form 6 was never amended; the SIR declaration is a separate document.

The ECI had already issued a press note on 26 September saying the SIR orders were unanimous.

Supporters’ case. Mohammad Amin, a former joint director of the ECI, said disagreements in internal discussion are normal and that the Commission’s final decisions are collective. He added that the letter to the Cabinet Secretary was an internal matter that had since been resolved. BJP leaders called the opposition’s charges false. One BJP response described the commissioners’ letters as a sign of healthy debate. The ECI and its supporters also point to the 27 May ruling: the Supreme Court found the SIR legal, proportionate and aimed at clean rolls, after rolls had gone two decades without a full clean-up of dead, shifted and duplicate entries.

What the Court will weigh. The question is not whether SIR is legal, which is settled. It is whether these specific orders were made by the full Commission. Petitioners have asked the Court to preserve the ECI’s internal file notings. Those records could show whether the objections were withdrawn, overruled or never formally pressed.

Timeline and what comes next