All decisions including SIR were unanimous, say EC sources

All decisions taken by the Election Commission, including those on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, were unanimous and approved by all three members, poll body sources said on Wednesday. The clarification follows an Indian Express report that Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times in 10 months. Sources said views may differ in deliberations, but final decisions follow unanimity or majority under Section 18 of the 2023 Act.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 11:48 am IST

Source

News18 — India · read the original report ↗

#election commission#sir#electoral rolls#opposition#politics

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

All EC decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, were unanimous and approved by all three members. — Attributed in source to unnamed 'EC sources'; no document cited.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months. — Attributed in source to an Indian Express report; figure appears in source but is not independently confirmed.
Objections covered Form 6 changes, electoral-roll database access, West Bengal appeals and software issues in Goa. — Attributed to the same Indian Express report as reproduced in the source.
Section 18(2) of the 2023 CEC and other ECs Act says business shall as far as possible be transacted unanimously, with differences decided by majority. — Statutory text quoted directly in the source; internally consistent.
Akhilesh Yadav called the development 'very serious' and urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance; Manish Tewari alleged an 'invisible hand' running the poll panel. — Quotes attributed to named opposition leaders in the source.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This looks like a procedural dispute, but politically the stake is the Election Commission's credibility. The EC sources' line — that all decisions, including SIR, were unanimous with all three members' approval — is a legally solid defence; yet the accompanying admission that "views may differ during internal deliberations" is precisely the opening the opposition needs. For parties that have already made SIR a political battleground, this shifts the narrative from "flaws in the process" to "dissent inside the institution".

The EC's pushback does not so much dispute the reported facts as reframe the argument around the statutory distinction between deliberation and final decision — a carefully chosen institutional defence.
The opposition's gain is mainly rhetorical: Akhilesh Yadav's call for the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance and Manish Tewari's "invisible hand" charge both work to keep doubt alive around SIR.
The natural counter-argument is that Section 18 of the 2023 Act itself contemplates differing opinions and majority rulings, so recorded objections indicate the process working rather than failing.
Because the reported concerns touch West Bengal and Goa, the row can travel from a national institutional debate into state-level electoral politics.
The medium-term risk is not confined to any single party — erosion of voter confidence in the rolls process damages every contestant.

What to watch — Watch whether the EC moves from unnamed "sources" to a formal on-record statement, whether the Commissioners themselves respond, and whether the matter reaches a court or Parliament.

The story does not establish whether the objections were in fact recorded or what they amounted to; neither the EC sources' claim nor the newspaper report is independently verified here, and no decision has been shown to be legally invalid.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a three-member body comprising the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners, currently CEC Gyanesh Kumar with Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Its internal functioning is governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, whose Section 18 requires business to be transacted unanimously "as far as possible", failing which by majority. An Indian Express report claimed the two Commissioners had objected on record at least 14 times in 10 months to various decisions, including those linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. EC sources have responded that all decisions, including on SIR, were unanimous and approved by all three members.

Key facts

EC sources said on Wednesday that all Commission decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were unanimous and approved by all three members.
An Indian Express report said Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to various decisions and orders.
Section 18(2) of the 2023 Act says all business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously; differences are decided by majority opinion.
Section 18(1) allows the EC, by unanimous decision, to regulate its procedure and allocate business among the CEC and other Election Commissioners.
The reported objections covered changes to Form 6, access to electoral-roll databases, appeals relating to West Bengal and software-related concerns in Goa.
Form 6 is the statutory form used by people applying to become voters; a new declaration linked to the last SIR was reportedly added to it, drawing objections from both Commissioners.
In Goa, software-related problems were reported to have affected the recording of certain decisions of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
The Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns over changes in the allocation of work involving the Commission's IT systems.

Timeline

Past 10 months (as reported)Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi allegedly recorded objections at least 14 times in official communications on decisions and electoral-roll processes.
Before the clarificationIndian Express publishes report detailing the objections, covering Form 6, database access, West Bengal appeals and Goa software issues.
Wednesday (date of clarification)EC sources assert all decisions, including on SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of all three members, citing Section 18 of the 2023 Act.
After the reportOpposition leaders Akhilesh Yadav and Congress MP Manish Tewari question the EC's credibility and the legal validity of its decisions.
September 23, 2026Story first published (as per the source).

Who has a stake

Election Commission of India — Institutional credibility and the perception that its decisions, including SIR, are collectively and lawfully taken.
CEC Gyanesh Kumar — Leadership of the panel; the claim of unanimity rests on his concurrence with both Commissioners.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — Their reported on-record objections and the space for dissent within a multi-member constitutional body.
Voters and applicants — Form 6 changes, electoral-roll database management and SIR outcomes directly affect enrolment and voting rights.
Opposition parties (Samajwadi Party, Congress) — Allege external influence over the poll panel and question the legal validity of its decisions.
Supreme Court — Akhilesh Yadav has urged it to take suo motu cognisance of the reported objections.
Electoral Registration Officers (Goa, West Bengal) — Software problems and appeals processes affected the recording and review of their decisions during SIR.

Why it matters

The Election Commission's authority rests on being seen as a neutral, collegial body, so reports of repeated recorded dissent by two of its three members go to the heart of public trust in the electoral roll revision process. Because Section 18 of the 2023 Act distinguishes between views expressed in deliberations and the final decision, the dispute is also about how transparently a multi-member constitutional body should function. With SIR affecting who appears on the voter list, questions over Form 6, database access and ERO decisions have direct consequences for the franchise.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

ECI is a three-member body: CEC Gyanesh Kumar with Election Commissioners S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Section 18(2), CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: business transacted unanimously as far as possible; else by majority.
Section 18(1) of the same Act: EC may, by unanimous decision, regulate its procedure and allocate business among members.
Form 6 is the statutory application form for enrolment as a new voter.
SIR = Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls; ERO = Electoral Registration Officer.
Reported objections involved Form 6 changes, electoral-roll database access, West Bengal appeals and Goa software issues.

Mains framing

The controversy over alleged recorded objections by two Election Commissioners tests the design of India's multi-member poll panel. Since 1993 the ECI has functioned as a collegial body, and Section 18 of the 2023 Act codifies that its business shall be transacted unanimously as far as possible and by majority where opinions differ, while Section 18(1) permits unanimous regulation of internal procedure and allocation of work. EC sources argue that dissent in deliberations is normal and does not detract from final decisions that were unanimous, including on SIR; critics, including Akhilesh Yadav and Manish Tewari, contend that repeated on-record objections on substantive matters such as Form 6 declarations, database access, West Bengal appeals and Goa software failures raise questions about internal process, an "invisible hand", and even the legal validity of decisions. The deeper issue is transparency: the electoral roll is the foundation of the franchise, and procedural opacity in its revision erodes confidence even where legality is asserted. A way forward, grounded in the source, lies in the Commission using its Section 18(1) power to clearly regulate procedure and work allocation by unanimous decision, placing reasons and dissents on record where appropriate, and addressing the specific technical and appellate lapses reported in Goa and West Bengal so that SIR outcomes are defensible before the public and the courts.

Key terms

Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An intensive exercise to revise electoral rolls, several of whose decisions are at the centre of the reported objections.
Section 18, CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023: Provision governing transaction of EC business: unanimity as far as possible, majority where opinions differ.
Form 6: Statutory form used by people applying to be enrolled as voters; a new declaration linked to the last SIR was reportedly added.
Electoral Registration Officer (ERO): Officer deciding voter enrolment and deletion matters; in Goa, software problems reportedly affected recording of their decisions.
Suo motu cognisance: A court taking up a matter on its own initiative, which Akhilesh Yadav urged the Supreme Court to do here.

Practice questions

Discuss how Section 18 of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 structures decision-making in a multi-member Election Commission, and whether it adequately provides for recording dissent.
"Transparency in electoral roll revision is as important as its legality." Examine in the light of the reported objections over Form 6, database access and ERO decisions during SIR.
Do reports of internal dissent weaken or strengthen the credibility of an independent constitutional body like the ECI? Critically analyse.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyKarnataka Lokayukta raids 33 locations, identifies Rs 29 crore assets →

← All stories