By Sudarshan Iyengar
The Election Commission of India is not an ordinary government department. It is a constitutional institution entrusted with something more fundamental than conducting elections: protecting the citizen’s right to choose.
Article 324 vests the Commission with superintendence, direction and control over electoral rolls and elections. Its credibility is therefore inseparable from that of Indian democracy. The controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has now acquired an unusual and serious dimension.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months concerning decisions relating to electoral rolls, voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, Form 6 and the centralisation of the electoral database in the hands of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
They reportedly objected that some communications had been issued without their knowledge or approval and, in one instance, described a move as “unauthorised” and “illegal”. Dissent within the Election Commission is not unprecedented.
There have been big differences among Commissioners in the past, including during the tenure of TN Seshan and, more recently, when Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa recorded dissent on the Model Code decisions in 2019. What is unusual about the present episode is the reported frequency and nature of the objections and their connection with the electoral-roll revision now affecting very large numbers of citizens.
Disagreement between Commissioners is not itself a constitutional failure. Indeed, the ability to disagree and record one’s disagreement is part of institutional accountability. Similarly, the SIR itself is not a new idea. The present exercise, however, is exceptional in scale. A voter is not a number in a data base.
Every entry in the electoral rolls records a citizen whose right to participate in democracy may depend upon that entry being correctly maintained and never wrongfully deleted or impaired in any manner. The reported objections of the two Commissioners therefore deserve public examination.
If they genuinely believed that important decisions were being taken without proper consultation, that changes were being made contrary to prescribed procedure, or that the electoral database was being centralised in a manner that weakened accountability, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether those objections were answered and how the final decisions were reached.
If, on the other hand, the objections were satisfactorily resolved within the Commission, the facts should also be made public. The recent intervention of the Supreme Court adds another reason for caution. In September 2026, while hearing a challenge concerning Delhi’s SIR, the Court asked whether notices to more than 33 lakh voters on grounds including “logical discrepancy” appeared to have been issued mechanically and asked the ECI whether additional safeguards were necessary.
This does not establish that the exercise is unlawful. But when a constitutional institution is dealing with millions of names, even the appearance of mechanical or careless procedure deserves serious attention. There is, however, another danger. The political drama surrounding SIR can be almost as harmful as administrative carelessness.
The Opposition has a more important responsibility. It must build a foolproof case, not only top-down but also bottom-up. It should document specific cases, produce verifiable evidence, ask precise questions, approach the appropriate constitutional and judicial forums, and demand public acknowledgement and correction where errors are established.
Another aspect that deserves to be stressed is that the same standard of accountability must apply to all three Commissioners. If the two Commissioners have recorded serious objections, they should tell the people clearly what they objected to and whether their concerns were resolved. If they conclude that serious wrongdoing occurred and that they themselves became witnesses to it without being able to prevent or correct it, a case can be made that resignation would be an act of personal integrity rather than political manoeuvring.
This is where Gandhi’s example becomes relevant. Gandhi did not regard public leadership as a shield against personal responsibility. When he concluded that he had committed a grave error in calling for civil disobedience prematurely, he publicly acknowledged what he called a “Himalayan miscalculation”. He wrote that he never regretted making that confession. For him, acknowledgement of one’s own error was not weakness; it was part of the discipline of truth.
The same principle should apply here. If there has been a serious error, it should be acknowledged. If citizens have been wrongly excluded, they should be restored. If procedure has been violated, responsibility should be fi xed. If the Commissioners’ objections were justified, they should not remain buried in files.
And if any con stitutional functionary believes that continuing in office would compromise his or her integrity, resignation and public explanation would be legitimate forms of accountability. The CEC is answerable but so are the two Commissioners equally answerable. India does not need an Election Commission without disagreement.
It needs an Election Commission in which disagreement is fearless, recorded, considered and transparent. The ultimate issue is whether every eligible Indian citizen can trust that his or her name will be included and retained through a process that is lawful, transparent, careful and capable of correcting mistakes.
Mass pruning and mass deletions render the entire process questionable. The Election Commission belongs neither to the government of the day nor to the Opposition. It belongs to the people of India. Its first duty is to protect the citizen’s vote.
That is the standard by which the CEC, the two Election Commissioners should be examined. That is the real Gandhi test of public integrity.
The writer is the former Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapith, the University founded by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920.
