Election Commission pushes back on dissent reports, says all SIR decisions were unanimous

The Election Commission on Wednesday said all decisions related to the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously, after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over voter-list procedures, including deletion of names.

In a press note, the poll panel said differences during internal deliberations were normal and did not represent final decisions. The statement came as Opposition parties accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of sidelining his colleagues and demanded his removal.

The poll body said all official orders, decisions and administrative directions are issued under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners’ statutory framework. It added that operational suggestions or inputs raised by commissioners during the drafting stage were part of the administrative process aimed at safeguarding voting rights.


The EC said differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations and did not represent a final decision. It said every officer of the Commission was authorised to offer suggestions to improve the electoral system.

Responding to reports about internal notes and observations over the past 10 months, the Commission said such notes were “part of the larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives given by the Commission.” It added that the Commission had taken numerous decisions, issued instructions and introduced around 40 new initiatives, including the conduct of electoral-roll revision, or SIR, across the country.

“All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year,” the EC said.

The Commission also said its digital platforms, including the ECINet, operate under strict data-security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering or manipulation. It said statutory authorities, including Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers, function as powers provided under law for voter registration and deletion.

The controversy centres on the Election Commission’s nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The exercise involves reviewing voter records, verifying elector details and removing names found to be ineligible or duplicated.

The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times in 10 months over decisions linked to the SIR and voter database management. The objections reportedly included concerns over deletion and restoration of names, changes to voter-registration Form 6, and orders issued without informing the two commissioners.

Election Commission officials, however, said the poll body had taken all decisions unanimously. They said the SIR was being implemented with the approval of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and both Election Commissioners. Officials also pointed to the law governing the poll panel and a Supreme Court judgment, which state that the Commission should strive for consensus, with a majority view prevailing where necessary.

The report triggered a political backlash. Opposition leaders accused the CEC of sidelining the other commissioners and acting without transparency. Congress leaders alleged that the SIR could exclude genuine voters, while Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray demanded Kumar’s removal and called for a return to ballot-paper voting.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge cited the report to renew allegations that voter lists had been manipulated. He claimed that 13.8 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls during the first three phases of the SIR across 31 states and Union Territories. These claims have not been independently established in the information available.

Opposition parties have also referred to notices moved in Parliament seeking Kumar’s removal. Congress leaders said 73 Rajya Sabha MPs had submitted a notice on April 24, 2026, citing alleged “proven misbehaviour”. The supplied reports contain differing claims on the status of the notice, with some opposition leaders describing it as pending and other references stating that similar motions were rejected.

The Election Commission’s forthcoming statement is expected to clarify whether the objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi concerned formal decisions of the full Commission, internal administrative processes or specific voter-roll instructions. It may also address the process followed for deletions, restorations and changes to Form 6 during the SIR.