Opposition Urges Supreme Court to Take Note of Reported EC Dissent Over SIR

The Election Commission has come under fresh political scrutiny following a report claiming that two of the three Election Commissioners raised objections to several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

An Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections 14 times over the past 10 months. The reported disagreements covered issues including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, and appeals against decisions taken during the SIR exercise.

The report prompted reactions from several Opposition leaders, including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Congress MPs Manish Tewari and Jairam Ramesh, AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj and Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut.

WHAT DID THE REPORT SAY?

According to the investigation, Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns over different aspects of the Election Commission’s functioning, including decisions involving electoral-roll data and the handling of voter appeals.

One of the reported disagreements concerned appeals filed against voters whose names had been included in the rolls by judicial officers during the SIR process in West Bengal.

The report said Sandhu questioned why the Election Commission had challenged the inclusion of such voters. He reportedly noted that neither he, Joshi nor the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or procedure followed for filing those appeals.

The three-member Election Commission is headed by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

SIR PROCESS UNDER SCRUTINY

The reported disagreements come against the backdrop of the nationwide SIR exercise, which was launched in Bihar last year and has since been extended to several states and Union Territories.

West Bengal has been one of the most closely watched states in the exercise. The Election Commission recently told the Supreme Court that around 38 lakh appeals were pending before tribunals in the state.

Of these, more than 22 lakh appeals were filed by voters whose names had been deleted, while around 16 lakh appeals sought deletion of names that had been retained or added to the electoral rolls.

The reported objection by Sandhu over appeals involving voters included by judicial officers has therefore become a key point of political debate.

OPPOSITION DEMANDS ANSWERS

Akhilesh Yadav described the reported differences within the poll panel as a serious matter and urged the Supreme Court to take note of the developments. He questioned whether members of an independent constitutional body were being given adequate space to raise their concerns.

Congress MP Manish Tewari also questioned the Election Commission’s credibility following the report and called for scrutiny of the decision-making process.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said his party would raise the matter publicly, with Congress MP Abhishek Singhvi expected to elaborate on the report.

AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj targeted CEC Gyanesh Kumar and called for action against him. He also alleged that the Opposition had received unsatisfactory responses during its interactions with the poll panel.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut separately alleged irregularities in the use of technology for maintaining electoral rolls. He claimed that changes to the system had resulted in voters being removed and questioned the process surrounding Form 6, which is used for voter registration.

These allegations are claims made by Opposition leaders and should be distinguished from the findings attributed to the Indian Express investigation.

EC REJECTS CLAIM OF INTERNAL DISAGREEMENT

Amid the political controversy, sources in the Election Commission said that decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously.

The EC’s position contradicts the interpretation of the reported objections as evidence of a breakdown in decision-making within the three-member Commission. The poll panel has maintained that its decisions had the approval of all three Election Commissioners.

The contrasting accounts have intensified scrutiny of the Election Commission’s internal functioning at a time when the SIR exercise remains before the Supreme Court.

The dispute now centres not only on the electoral-roll revision itself but also on how decisions within the poll panel were discussed, recorded and implemented.