The internal friction within the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come to light, revealing a significant divide between the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the two Election Commissioners. Over the past 10 months, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have formally recorded their disagreement or objections on 14 different occasions regarding the commission's decisions and functioning. These objections highlight concerns that several critical decisions were made without their knowledge or prior approval, raising questions about the collaborative nature of the constitutional body under CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Core of the Dispute
The disagreements span a wide range of administrative and technical issues, including the registration of new voters, the removal of names from voter lists, the process of legal appeals, and the management of electoral data software. A significant portion of the controversy is linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and the technical systems used to maintain voter lists. Under the SIR process, which commenced in Bihar in June 2025, draft voter lists across 30 states and union territories saw the removal of more than 13 crore names. Both Election Commissioners raised questions about several decisions made by the CEC during this nationwide exercise and the internal procedures followed by the commission.
Controversy Over Form-6 Changes
One of the most prominent points of contention involves changes made to Form-6, the document used by adult citizens to register as new voters. In July of this year, a new question was added to the form, asking applicants whether their names, or those of their parents or grandparents, were included in the previous SIR voter list. While the question wasn't explicitly labeled as mandatory, the software prevented the form from being submitted unless it was answered. On May 16, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi had noted that Form-6 is a statutory form and any changes would require an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu concurred with this view on May 19. Despite these internal warnings, the change was implemented. On August 13, Sandhu described the move as unauthorized and illegal, demanding its immediate removal.
Centralization of Voter Data and ECINet
The Election Commission has traditionally maintained that the preparation of voter lists is a decentralized process, with the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), usually an official of SDM rank, holding responsibility for each assembly constituency. Voter data was previously managed on ERONet and later transitioned to ECINet. However, Commissioners Joshi and Sandhu expressed concerns that EROs weren't being given full access to these platforms, while in May, Joshi raised alarms over the gradual centralization of the voter database and called for an audit. He emphasized that the authority to make changes should remain solely with the designated legal officers. By August, Sandhu also noted that officials in several states weren't receiving accurate or complete access to ERONet, questioning the expanding role and powers of the IT department within the commission.
The West Bengal Appeal Mystery
The SIR process in West Bengal became a major flashpoint. In February 2026, the Supreme Court handed over the investigation of approximately 60 lakh voter cases to judicial officers due to logical inconsistencies in the records. Subsequently, the commission removed about 27 lakh names. Tribunals consisting of retired High Court judges were established to hear appeals against these removals, while 10 lakh appeals against voters who were included by judicial officers. Commissioner Sandhu questioned who authorized the filing of these appeals on behalf of the ECI. In August, he noted that neither he, nor Joshi, nor the current Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal were aware of who had actually filed these appeals or granted the permission to do so.
Disenfranchisement in Goa
A technical glitch in Goa further fueled the internal fire. In the cases of 97 voters, the ERO had found them eligible for the final voter list after verifying their documents. However, the software didn't provide an option to record this decision. Between February 11 and February 17, the Goa CEO office sent 8 letters requesting the activation of this option, but the system wasn't updated in time. As a result, these 97 eligible individuals were excluded from the final voter list.
Legal Framework and the 2023 Act
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission is a constitutional body where the CEC and the two Election Commissioners hold equal status. The CEC is considered first among equals rather than a sole decision-maker. According to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the commission's work should, as far as possible, be conducted through consensus. In cases of differing opinions, decisions are to be made by a majority. Sandhu and Joshi repeatedly cited these provisions, asserting that any communication or decision issued in the name of the commission must have the commission's collective approval. In April and May, both commissioners issued written warnings to officials regarding this requirement.
IT System Disputes and Recent Developments
The launch of ECINet on January 22 was intended to provide a unified technical foundation for electoral work involving nearly one billion voters, integrating over 40 apps and portals. However, internal questions about the IT system began as early as November 2025. In May 2026, Joshi proposed an audit of the system by external experts from IIT to ensure that data modification rights remained with statutory officers. Sandhu supported this in July. On July 28, a change was made in the work allocation related to the supervision of the IT department. Both commissioners wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan, calling the move a violation of the law. The following day, they jointly stayed the order and directed the continuation of the old system. While the ECI issued a clarification on September 23 stating that all decisions, including SIR, were taken unanimously, the lack of response to specific queries from the media and the silence following the full meeting on September 9 suggest that the internal rift remains a significant challenge for the institution.