The Indian Express ECI investigation conducted by reporter Ritika Chopra has uncovered an unusual story from within the Election Commission of India. In accordance with the investigation, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Election Commissioners, raised objections at least 14 times in 10 months in regard to decisions related to the voter registration process, the deletion and reinstatement of names, the Form 6 and the management of the electoral roll database. Four objections were made on one day only.
Indian Express ECI Investigation: What Did the Two Commissioners Observe to?
The complaints covered several aspects. Joshi and Sandhu objected to changes in the Form 6 for new voters, claiming that this was unauthorised and illegal and needed to be done through the alteration of the rules by the government. Furthermore, the centralisation of the electoral roll databases and the access rights of state level officials to them were also questioned by the two commissioners.
The study also reviewed cases from the State of West Bengal regarding SIR appeals and an incident involving Goa where apparently 97 voters were not included on the final list even though they were determined to be eligible by local Electoral Registration Officers because the software had no process for documenting the correction.
For those interested in institutional and governmental effects on individual citizens, there is more insight into India’s governance issues through DemocraX’s India and policy reports, and a better understanding of how DemocraX deals with changes that impact the citizenry through its UPI policy explainer.
What About Gyanesh Kumar and the 2023 Protection Law?
The ECI does not dispute the existence of the 14 memos but states that internal disagreements and discussions of differences of opinion are common and that all decisions during the last year have been made unanimously.
The independent legal issue is Section 16 of the 2023 CEC Act. The provision was included in the Bill by Parliament on December 12, 2023, during the deliberation of the legislation. It provides protection to serving and former CECs and Election Commissioners from civil or criminal proceedings on certain acts in connection with their office.
The contention that this clause was crafted out of anticipation of future wrongdoings being revealed by the government cannot be derived from the parliamentary history. What can be gleaned is the fact that this clause was introduced by way of an amendment in December 2023; subsequently, the Supreme Court decided to review a case challenging this clause in January 2026 but did not stay it.
Politically, the aftermath is escalating opposition parties have started planning yet another motion for removal of Gyanesh Kumar in both Houses of Parliament.
From the point of view of the citizen, the question could not be clearer: how much of the decision-making that takes place within the body conducting elections should be transparent? This is the crux of the ECI problem.
