Questions raised over conduct of CEC and two Election Commissioners

An Indian Express investigation published on September 23 reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months on electoral rolls, Form 6, voter data access and the poll body's IT systems, raising questions about CEC Gyanesh Kumar's handling of the Special Intensive Revision. Analysts Rajat Sethi and Yogendra Yadav questioned why the ECs joined joint press briefings, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary rather than the President, and stayed in office.

Written by AI from India Today · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 25 Sept 2026, 6:33 am IST

Source

India Today · read the original report ↗

#election commission#gyanesh kumar#electoral rolls#dissent#sir

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months, including four times in one day. — Attributed in source to an Indian Express investigation published September 23; underlying documents not public.
Joshi recorded on May 16, 2026 that Form 6 changes could not be made via an SIR order as the form is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Sandhu concurred on May 19, and Sandhu on August 13 called the changes 'unauthorised or illegal'. — Dates and quoted wording appear in source, attributed to The Indian Express.
Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan on July 29 after a July 28 work-allocation change by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. — Attributed to The Indian Express; no ECI confirmation cited.
The Indian Express sent a questionnaire to the ECI and emails to both ECs on September 21 and received no response. — Stated in source as the newspaper's own account; unverifiable independently.
Article 324 and the 2023 law make the ECI a multi-member body where a majority prevails absent unanimity, and the CEC is equal to the ECs. — Presented in source as legal background without citation of specific provisions.

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

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The surfacing of internal dissent inside the Election Commission hands political ammunition to both the opposition and the government — but not of equal calibre. The opposition can now argue its concerns over electoral rolls found echo inside the institution itself; the ruling side can counter that if two commissioners recorded objections yet appeared at joint press conferences and stayed in office, the system evidently held. The real political casualty here is less any individual than the institutional asset of the Commission's perceived neutrality.

Because the CEC and the two ECs are legal equals, the simple political story of one man overriding the body becomes harder to sustain.
Questions over how the Special Intensive Revision was conducted strengthen the opposition's framing that roll-related grievances have an institutional basis.
The ECs' participation in joint briefings despite recorded objections, and their decision to stay on, is the weak flank the ruling side can exploit.
Writing to the Cabinet Secretary rather than the President invites the criticism that an independent constitutional body leaned on the government's executive machinery.
Since it is unclear whether the two commissioners ever constituted a formal majority against a decision, both camps can read the record in their own favour.

What to watch — Watch whether the Commission's minutes and internal notes are made public, and whether the opposition converts this into a sustained demand in Parliament or before the courts.

The story does not establish that anyone broke the law or that electoral rolls were actually manipulated; the Commission's final decisions, the majority position and any response from the ECI or the two commissioners remain unpublished.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 10 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Election Commission of India is a multi-member constitutional body under Article 324, comprising the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners who are legally equals, with decisions taken unanimously or by majority under the 2023 law governing their appointment and service. An Indian Express investigation published on September 23 revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months on electoral rolls, Form 6, voter data access and the poll body's IT architecture, questioning CEC Gyanesh Kumar's conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The disclosures triggered demands for accountability from the CEC, but also raised questions about whether the two ECs used the institutional powers available to them. Analysts Rajat Sethi and Yogendra Yadav, speaking on India Today TV, asked why the ECs joined joint press briefings, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary rather than the President, and stayed in office.

Key facts

The Indian Express investigation, published Wednesday, September 23, found the two ECs recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months, including four times in a single day.
Objections covered electoral rolls, Form 6, access to voter data, the ECI's IT systems and alleged curtailing of statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) through centralised control of the electoral-roll database.
Vivek Joshi recorded on May 16, 2026 that changes to Form 6 could not be made through an SIR order as the form is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and suggested referring it to the government; Sandhu concurred on May 19.
The disputed Form 6 changes later appeared on the ECI portal ECINet; on August 13 Sandhu recorded that they were "unauthorised or illegal" and sought their removal.
ECINet was launched on January 22 (2026), amid recorded concerns over centralisation of electoral-roll data.
On July 28, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg changed work allocation in the Commission's administration division; on July 29 Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan calling it a violation, and later jointly overturned the order.
Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, held his first "vote chori" press conference on August 7, 2025; CEC Gyanesh Kumar responded on August 17 with Sandhu and Joshi present.
The Indian Express sent a questionnaire to the ECI and emails to both ECs on September 21, followed by two phone calls each; there was no response.

Timeline

August 7, 2025Rahul Gandhi holds his first press conference alleging "vote chori".
August 17, 2025CEC Gyanesh Kumar addresses the media to rebut the allegations, with ECs Sandhu and Joshi present alongside him.
January 22ECINet, the ECI's online portal, is launched.
March 10The three commissioners hold a joint press briefing.
March 15Joint appearance for the election schedule announcement.
AprilCEC Gyanesh Kumar with ECs Sandhu and Joshi meets a TMC delegation.
May 16, 2026Joshi records that Form 6 changes cannot be made via an SIR order, as the form is under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
May 19Sandhu concurs with Joshi's note on Form 6.
July 28Senior Deputy EC Maneesh Garg changes work allocation in the administration division, affecting oversight of the IT division.
July 29Sandhu and Joshi separately write to Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan alleging a violation and seeking action; the order is later jointly overturned.

Who has a stake

CEC Gyanesh Kumar — Faces demands for accountability, including resignation, over how the SIR, Form 6 changes and alleged bypassing of the Commission were handled.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — Their recorded dissent is now public, but their conduct — joint press briefings, letter to the Cabinet Secretary, continuing in office — is under scrutiny.
Election Commission of India — Institutional credibility as an independent constitutional authority under Article 324, and the integrity of electoral roll preparation.
Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) — Their statutory powers were allegedly being curtailed by centralised control of the electoral-roll database.
Voters and new registrants — Form 6 registration, electoral roll accuracy and data access directly determine whether citizens are enrolled to vote.
Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan / Union government — Approached by the ECs over an internal ECI dispute, raising questions about executive involvement in an independent body.
Opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi — The disclosures bolster its "vote chori" allegations against the poll body.

Why it matters

The dispute goes to the heart of how citizens are registered as voters and how electoral rolls are prepared and maintained — not minor administrative disagreement. If a valid majority within a multi-member constitutional body was disregarded, or statutory procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 bypassed, the legality of decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision is open to challenge. Equally, the episode tests whether recording dissent internally is enough accountability for constitutional office-holders.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Article 324 establishes the Election Commission of India as an independent constitutional authority.
The CEC and the two Election Commissioners are equals in law; the 2023 law provides for decision-making by the multi-member Commission with a majority prevailing where unanimity is not possible.
Form 6 is the statutory form used by new voters to register; it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
ECINet is the ECI's online portal, launched on January 22.
The CEC and ECs are appointed by the President; the ECI is not administratively subordinate to the Cabinet Secretary.
SIR stands for Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Mains framing

The controversy illustrates a structural weakness in India's electoral administration: the ECI is a multi-member body under Article 324 whose internal decision-making is opaque, with no public record of minutes, notes or how majorities are counted. The Indian Express disclosures — at least 14 recorded objections in 10 months, Form 6 changes allegedly made through an SIR order despite being governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the centralisation of the electoral-roll database allegedly curtailing EROs' statutory powers — suggest either that a valid majority of two commissioners was disregarded or that the record of dissent was never converted into a formal Commission decision. The ECs' own conduct compounds the problem: they appeared jointly with the CEC at press briefings on August 17, 2025, March 10 and March 15, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary rather than the President on July 29, and did not resign, even though they demonstrated (by jointly overturning the July 28 work-allocation order) that they could act collectively. The way forward lies in transparency about Commission proceedings — whether full Commission meetings were convened, how disagreements were resolved and on what legal basis — and in clarity that constitutional office-holders must exhaust internal statutory routes and constitutional channels rather than the executive. Both the CEC and the ECs owe public explanation; scrutiny of one does not absolve the other.

Key terms

Special Intensive Revision (SIR): The ECI exercise for revising electoral rolls, during which the disputed Form 6 changes and data centralisation decisions were taken.
Form 6: Statutory form used by new voters to register, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
ECINet: The Election Commission's online portal, launched January 22, where the disputed Form 6 changes appeared.
Electoral Registration Officer (ERO): Official with statutory powers over voter registration and roll preparation; these powers were allegedly curtailed by database centralisation.
Article 324: Constitutional provision establishing the Election Commission as an independent authority superintending elections.
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Rules prescribing voter registration forms and procedure; changes to them require government action, not an ECI order.

Practice questions

The Election Commission of India is a multi-member body in which the CEC and Election Commissioners are equals. In light of recent disclosures of internal dissent, examine whether the existing framework ensures transparent and lawful decision-making within the Commission.
"Recording dissent cannot be the end of accountability." Critically discuss the institutional options available to a constitutional office-holder who believes the body has ceased to function according to law.
Why does the choice of approaching the Cabinet Secretary rather than the President raise a constitutional question for members of the Election Commission? Explain with reference to Article 324.

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

Next storyAlliance with Congress to continue, seats on winnability: Akhilesh →

← All stories