ECI rift? Two Election Commissioners quietly fought the CEC Gyanesh Kumar for 10 months
&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium "ECI rift? Two Election Commissioners quietly fought the CEC Gyanesh Kumar for 10 months")
Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar Photograph: (ANI)
Two Election Commissioners reportedly objected 14 times over SIR-related decisions for 10 months, flagging concerns over voter rolls, ECINet and ‘illegal, unauthorised’ changes to Form 6
The Election Commission of India's public unity have been put into question by an investigation by the Indian Express, which shows that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected 14 times over a period of ten months, four times on a single day, to decisions and processes under CEC Gyanesh Kumar specifically tied to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The exercise has affected roughly 13 crore voters across India.
The ECI has attempted to shrug off the controversy, stating that differing opinions among Election Commission members are “a normal part” of the decision-making, while opposition parties have voiced their concern and demanded impeachment of the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar.
Centralisation of Electoral Roll
According to the Express Investigation, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi were kept in the dark about the decisions of ECI; the two commissioners even wrote to the Cabinet Secretary complaining about the change of work allocation that resulted in reduced oversight of the IT backbone of the electoral rolls. In fact, that was the key point of dispute: centralisation of the voter database. The two commissioners flagged that the Electoral Registration Officer, the statutory authority of each constituency's electoral roll, did not have "proper and complete access" to the database in ECINet. In May 2025, Joshi sought an audit by outside IIT experts to certify that “no one, except the concerned statutory authorities, has credentials to make any change in the (voter) database.”
It questioned the only explanation given by the Election Commission for years to deny any allegation of electoral manipulation: that the electoral rolls were decentralised. The investigation claimed that the Election Commission's Director General of IT, Seema Khanna, had “no legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate,” the ECInet to the EROs. These discrepancies had led to the overriding of EROs and the blocking of eligible voters. By April 16, Sandhu was recording concerns that the IT division was developing new modules and portals without bringing them to his knowledge, saying he'd learned of some developments through the media rather than a proper briefing.
Trending Stories
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Form 6 dispute
Alongside the IT dispute, another slugfest broke out over the alteration of Form 6 – statutory in nature – which included new questions about first-time voters' parents and grandparents appearing on the “electoral roll of last SIR.” The Form 6 was linked to the forms of the SIR exercise, which are non-statutory and “a one-time measure and exception”. The portal was coded so that applicants could not proceed with or submit their Form 6 application until this SIR mapping section was answered, acting as a technical gatekeeper. Sandhu and Joshi argued the form is embedded in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and cannot be altered without formal government notification. Despite the objection, it went live on the portal anyway. Sandhu warned that it risked harassing and disenfranchising first-time voters.
Reactions from ECI and Opposition
ECI sources told journalists that all decisions of the Commission, including SIR, have been unanimous and made with the approval of both Election Commissioners and the CEC; internal differing was part of the decision-making process, directly contradicting the premise of the Express investigation. Despite the attempt, it did not defuse the story; rather triggered the political community, specifically the opposition parties, with repeated calls for the removal of the CEC, Gyanesh Kumar. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called it a “treason”. Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal argued that most decisions since June 25, 2025, were not taken by majority despite Joshi and Sandhu's objections, and said the CEC acted without reference to the other two members, in violation of the Commission's own rules. Others like Akhilesh Yadav and CPI(M) MP John Brittas renewed demands for Kumar's removal, with Brittas noting that an April 2026 removal notice already has around 70 signatures.
