Heat On CEC

The demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation has now acquired a sharper edge with opposition parties stepping up protests and the possibility of the controversy reaching the courts. However, beyond the political battle lies a far more fundamental question: what happened inside the Election Commission when two of its three members repeatedly objected to decisions concerning the electoral rolls? According to an investigation by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months. Their concerns covered new voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, access to the electoral database and the functioning of the software governing the rolls. On some occasions, they alleged that decisions had been taken without their knowledge. The controversy over Form 6 is particularly important. It is used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. A new declaration linked the form to the previous Special Intensive Revision, asking applicants whether their own name or that of a parent or grandparent appeared in the earlier roll. The two Election Commissioners had objected in May, saying that the statutory form could not be changed without amending the relevant rules. Despite this, the new declaration appeared on the EC’s ECINet portal. Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal. This is not a minor procedural disagreement. If a statutory form can be changed without following the prescribed legal route, questions naturally arise about who authorised the change and under what authority. The Election Commission has argued that the disputed section was not technically part of Form 6 itself, but critics are unlikely to regard that explanation as sufficient when applicants could not proceed without answering it. Equally disturbing are the objections concerning the centralisation of the electoral database. The Election Commission has traditionally defended the integrity of electoral rolls by pointing to their decentralised structure, with Electoral Registration Officers exercising statutory authority at the constituency level. The two Commissioners reportedly questioned whether increasing control of the database from the Commission’s headquarters was weakening that safeguard. The software controversy gives these objections added significance. The political debate has included claims that software manipulation was responsible for the deletion of 8.7 crore voters. That figure and the allegation of deliberate software-driven deletion, however, cannot be treated as established facts without documentary and technical evidence. What can be established is that the two Commissioners raised concerns about the integrity and control of the electoral software and, according to the investigation, even approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes affecting oversight of the IT system. The Election Commission has maintained that differences of opinion are part of institutional decision-making and has defended the functioning of its systems. However, that response does not fully answer the central question raised by the 14 objections: how were the concerns of two members of the three-member Commission dealt with? The seriousness of the issue is heightened by the Goa experience, where 97 voters reportedly satisfied the Electoral Registration Officer’s requirements but the software did not allow the officials to record their decisions restoring those voters. The issue, therefore, is not simply whether the CEC should resign. It is whether the Election Commission can provide a complete and credible account of how decisions affecting millions of voters were taken despite repeated objections from two of its own members. The Commission owes the public clear answers, not general assurances.