14 Times in 10 Months: Internal Dissent Puts India’s Election Commission Under Unprecedented Scrutiny
The Election Commission of India is facing an unusually serious institutional controversy after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions and orders issued in the Commission’s name. The objections reportedly included four made on a single day and concerned matters at the heart of electoral-roll management.
According to the investigation, the two commissioners said they had not been consulted about several decisions involving the addition, deletion and restoration of voters, appeals arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), changes to Form 6 and the management and security of the electoral-roll database. Their objections were copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The reported disagreements are significant because the Election Commission is a three-member constitutional body. Under the 2023 law governing its functioning, the Commission’s business is to be conducted, as far as possible, unanimously; where commissioners disagree, decisions are taken according to the majority view. The ECI has maintained that the reported objections were part of its internal deliberative process and that the final decisions, including SIR, were unanimous.
The dispute therefore turns on an important distinction: recording an objection during institutional deliberation does not automatically mean that the final decision was legally invalid. But the reported frequency and subject matter of the objections have raised questions about how major electoral decisions were discussed and communicated inside the Commission.
One of the most consequential areas concerns the electoral-roll database. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly raised concerns about what they described as the gradual centralisation of electoral-roll data and access to the system in Delhi. They also separately wrote to the Cabinet Secretary over changes in responsibility for the information-technology infrastructure supporting the electoral rolls.
Another dispute involved Form 6, the statutory application through which citizens register as voters. According to the investigation, a new question was added to the digital registration process concerning whether an applicant, parent or grandparent appeared in an electoral roll from the previous SIR. Joshi reportedly objected that a statutory form could not be changed without amending the relevant electoral rules, while Sandhu subsequently described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and sought its removal.
The reported objections also extended to West Bengal, where questions arose over appeals involving voters included in electoral rolls during the SIR process. In Goa, software-related problems reportedly prevented election officials from recording decisions concerning the eligibility of 97 voters, adding another example of how technological systems can have direct consequences for individual voting rights.
The controversy is unfolding against the backdrop of the nationwide SIR exercise, which has involved verification and revision of electoral rolls on an enormous scale. The exercise began in Bihar in 2025 and has subsequently been extended to other parts of the country. The scale of the operation makes the Commission’s internal procedures especially important because decisions affecting individual voter records can potentially affect millions of citizens.
The ECI has rejected the interpretation that the reported objections demonstrate a breakdown in decision-making. Officials told Hindustan Times that all Commission decisions, including SIR, had the approval of all three commissioners. The Commission has also characterised the objections as part of the normal decision-making process rather than evidence that the final decisions lacked unanimity.
The public controversy nevertheless intensified because the three commissioners continued to present a united public face during several important briefings while objections were reportedly being recorded internally. India Today reported that between October 2025 and August 2026, the Commission conducted several joint briefings despite the internal disagreements reported during the same period.
That contrast between internal objections and external unanimity is now central to the debate. Institutional deliberation necessarily allows commissioners to disagree. The more important questions are whether those disagreements were properly considered, whether dissenting concerns were resolved through the legally prescribed process and whether the public record adequately explains how final decisions were reached.
The controversy has also revived scrutiny of the 2023 law governing appointments to the Election Commission. Gyanesh Kumar became the first Chief Election Commissioner appointed under the new framework, which gives the Union government a larger role in the selection process than the mechanism recommended by the Supreme Court in 2023. The appointment system has long been criticised by opposition parties, although the law remains the statutory framework governing the Commission.
The issue has now entered another legal phase. On September 25, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking criminal prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commission officials over alleged statutory violations connected with SIR. The petitioner has also sought an independent investigation and challenged alleged decisions and software changes that were supposedly made without concurrence from the other commissioners. These remain allegations contained in a petition, not established judicial findings.
Political reactions have been much sharper. Opposition parties have demanded action against Gyanesh Kumar, while Rahul Gandhi has called for his resignation and alleged that the internal objections support the opposition’s broader accusations concerning electoral-roll manipulation. The Election Commission has rejected allegations that the electoral-roll revision is being manipulated.
The immediate constitutional question is therefore not simply whether two commissioners disagreed with the CEC. It is whether the Commission’s internal decision-making procedures were followed transparently and whether the objections were meaningfully addressed before consequential decisions affecting voters were implemented.
There is also a broader institutional question. The Election Commission’s authority depends heavily on public confidence that voter registration, deletion, restoration and electoral administration are conducted according to consistent rules rather than discretionary decisions. Internal disagreement does not by itself destroy that confidence, but unexplained disagreement over voter databases and eligibility can make transparency particularly important.
The “14 objections” figure is consequently significant not merely because of its numerical value. It indicates that disagreements were repeatedly recorded over a sustained period and touched several core functions of the electoral system. At the same time, the ECI’s response—that final decisions were unanimous—means the full significance of those objections cannot be determined solely from the existence of the objections themselves.
The next stage will depend on documentary records, the Commission’s explanations and judicial scrutiny of the legal questions raised by the SIR process. If the objections were appropriately resolved within the Commission’s statutory framework, that process should be capable of demonstrating it. If procedures were bypassed, the relevant authorities will have to determine the legal consequences.
For India’s electoral system, the larger issue is transparency. Citizens do not need every Election Commissioner to agree on every question. They do, however, need confidence that disagreements are handled according to law, that electoral databases are securely administered, that legitimate voters have effective remedies and that decisions affecting the right to vote can withstand independent scrutiny.
The revelation of 14 formal objections therefore marks a significant moment in the continuing debate over the Election Commission. It does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by Gyanesh Kumar or invalidate the Commission’s decisions. But it has brought an unusual level of internal disagreement into public view—and placed renewed attention on whether India’s most important electoral institution can demonstrate, through its own records and procedures, how those disagreements were resolved.
