A new political controversy has emerged in India following a report about differences within the Election Commission of India between Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners. According to the report, the two Election Commissioners have raised questions about the addition, deletion and restoration of names on electoral rolls, changes to Form 6, and the management of voter data. They have also expressed concerns about the centralisation of voter data and election software.
Seema Khanna is the senior official in charge of IT and digital systems at the Election Commission. On January 22, 2026, the Election Commission launched ECI-Net. The current dispute within the Commission concerns the management of electoral rolls through ECI-Net and ERO-Net.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have questioned whether the IT department, headed by Seema Khanna, has restricted the access and statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are responsible for electoral-roll work at the ground level. The issue reportedly came to the fore in Goa, where EROs were unable to make changes to the voter-list system despite having the statutory authority to do so. At the same time, the department headed by Seema Khanna at the central level was reportedly able to make such changes, even though it did not have statutory authority to alter or intervene in the electoral-roll system.
The most significant example of this dispute has emerged from Goa. According to the report, the cases of 97 voters were examined at the local ERO level, and the voters were found eligible for inclusion in the electoral roll. However, software and database-access problems prevented the concerned names from being added to the final electoral roll. The EROs were simply unable to enter the names into the voter-list system.
The office of Goa's Chief Electoral Officer sent eight emails to the Election Commission between February 11 and 17, 2026, seeking a solution to the problem and requesting that a rollback facility be made available. The communications were addressed to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Gyanesh Bharti, with Seema Khanna also copied on them. However, no action was reportedly taken by the central Election Commission. In connection with the matter, the two Election Commissioners also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary.
At the same time, the annual Special Summary Revision (SSR) process for adding the names of young people who have turned 18 to the electoral rolls has reportedly remained pending since 2024.
In recent times, debate surrounding the Election Commission has intensified on two fronts. The first concerns the process for appointing members of the Commission, and the second concerns the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Reports of disagreements within the Commission over decision-making have further intensified discussion about the institution's internal functioning and transparency.
The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body that performs its responsibilities under Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. It functions as a multi-member constitutional body.
Questions being raised about the institution responsible for conducting elections have implications for its credibility. In a democracy, elections are not merely a mechanism for choosing a government through ballot papers or electronic voting machines. Public confidence in the entire electoral system is the real strength of democracy.
The two Election Commissioners had reportedly raised several objections to decisions concerning the SIR that were taken without their knowledge. For many years, Parliament did not enact a separate law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. In March 2023, in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that until Parliament enacted such a law, appointments should be made on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The Court regarded the independence of the Election Commission as essential to free and fair elections.
Parliament subsequently enacted legislation in 2023 governing the appointment, conditions of service and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. Under that law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Chief Justice of India was excluded from the committee.
That provision is now under challenge before the Supreme Court. On September 23, 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court expressed differing views on the matter. The case has consequently been referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration of whether it should be placed before a Constitution Bench. This does not mean that the appointments law has been declared unconstitutional. Rather, it opens the way for its constitutional validity to be considered by a larger bench.
The electoral roll is the first step in democratic participation. If the name of an eligible citizen is missing from the electoral roll, that citizen cannot exercise their political right at the polling station. This is why cleaning and updating electoral rolls is an essential process. The Election Commission has argued that it is necessary to remove the names of deceased, relocated, duplicate or otherwise ineligible voters.
Yet the removal of more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across the country during the SIR process has raised questions about transparency.
The possibility that eligible citizens could be excluded from the rolls, combined with the complexity of the verification process, has caused concern among ordinary voters. Civil-society organisations and political parties have expressed apprehension that the demanding verification process could result in genuine voters being left off the electoral rolls.
In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR. However, the controversy surrounding electoral rolls has made clear how important it is to strike a balance between correcting electoral rolls and protecting the right to vote.
The success of any electoral-roll revision, therefore, should not be measured solely by how many ineligible names have been removed. It must also be assessed by how many eligible citizens remained on the rolls, how many people whose names were removed were informed in time, and whether they were given a genuine opportunity to present their case and appeal.
Over the past ten months, the two Election Commissioners have reportedly recorded several objections to decisions taken by the Commission, particularly those relating to the SIR. In democratic institutions, disagreement can be a legitimate part of deliberation and decision-making. What matters is the legal basis on which the final decision is taken and whether the members concerned have been provided with adequate information.
Following the current controversy, the Election Commission issued a press release stating that all official orders, decisions and administrative directions had been issued with full legal approval and in accordance with the statutory procedures prescribed under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
For democracy, it is essential that the credibility of an institution not be determined merely by political rhetoric. The real strength of the Election Commission will lie in its ability to clearly explain the legal basis of its decisions, listen to objections raised by political parties and citizens, and, wherever possible, make sufficient information about its decision-making process publicly available.
The impartiality of an institution responsible for conducting elections matters enormously because the political legitimacy of both the ruling party and the opposition is at stake in an election. If public confidence in an electoral process weakens among a substantial section of society, debate over the public acceptance of the results can begin even when those results are constitutionally valid.
The independence of the Election Commission, therefore, should not be treated as a matter of convenience for one political party or a grievance of another. It is a question that concerns every voter.
Democratic credibility is not determined merely by whether an election was held on time or whether the results were declared. Its foundation rests on the belief that every eligible citizen's vote is recorded, every vote carries equal weight, and the institution conducting elections is accountable to the Constitution above any political authority.
That trust is democracy's greatest capital.
---
*With Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Persons Association
Comments