Election commissioners reportedly flag concerns over voter-roll revision process

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have reportedly recorded objections to aspects of the Election Commission of India’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls, including the centralisation of voter data and changes to registration procedures. According to the supplied material, the two commissioners raised concerns over the past 10 months and submitted formal dissent notes, including one to the Cabinet Secretary. Their objections have added to reports of disagreement within the poll body.

Joshi reportedly proposed in May an audit to certify that no person outside the authorised statutory bodies had credentials to alter the voter database. In August, Sandhu said state-level election officials had reported that they lacked proper and complete access to ERONet, the digital system used to maintain electoral rolls. Sandhu also questioned whether the Election Commission’s Director General of Information Technology had legal authority to restrict the access and operational freedom provided by law to statutory officials.

The commissioners reportedly objected to changes in Form 6, which new voters use to register. The revised form asked whether applicants or their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll from the last special intensive revision. They warned that such a statutory form could not be changed without amending the relevant 1960 rules.

Sandhu described the change as unauthorised and illegal, according to the material. They also questioned the authority for appeals filed in West Bengal against voters whom judicial tribunals had already included on the rolls. The material says 38 lakh appeals were pending.

Another concern involved Goa, where 97 voters found eligible after a Supreme Court-mandated hearing were reportedly omitted from the final roll because centrally controlled software could not record decisions by local Electoral Registration Officers. The commissioners’ objections have prompted questions from experts about why the full Commission was not convened to resolve the disputes through its voting process.