Election Commission Clarifies Reports of Differences Over Electoral Rolls and SIR Exercise

: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Saturday sought to address reports of differences within the poll panel, stating that key decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were taken unanimously by all three Election Commissioners. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi held a meeting at Nirvachan Sadan in New Delhi on Saturday afternoon. According to the Commission, the meeting took place amid reports that the two Election Commissioners had raised objections to certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. The Commission issued a point-by-point clarification on several issues that have emerged in recent reports, including changes to Form 6, the functioning of the ECINET portal, allocation of responsibilities within the IT division, appeals related to the West Bengal SIR and the exclusion of voters from electoral rolls in Goa. On Form 6, which is used for the enrolment of new voters, the Commission addressed concerns over a declaration introduced during the SIR process requiring prospective voters to establish links with the previous SIR through their parents’ names. The ECI said the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It added that outside the SIR exercise, the forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would continue to be used. On concerns surrounding ECINET and access to electoral-roll data, the Commission said field-level officials have role-based access based on their statutory responsibilities. It also announced a review of ECINET by a committee headed by a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and including an independent expert from an IIT or IIIT. Any additional flexibility required by field officials would also be considered, the Commission said. The ECI further decided that new initiatives involving IT modules and portals would first be examined by the committee of officers before being placed before the full Commission for approval. The poll panel also clarified a letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary concerning the redistribution of work involving an officer on deputation to the ECI. The Commission said the communication was not connected with any policy matter concerning the ECI or its IT division, but related to the functioning of the deputed officer. It added that the disputed work redistribution orders were not implemented following directions from two Election Commissioners and that the Deputy Election Commissioner’s oversight of the IT division remained unchanged. On the SIR exercise, the ECI said its June 24, 2025 order launching the revision across states and Union Territories was approved unanimously by the Commission. The poll panel said subsequent schedules for the exercise were also issued with unanimous approval. It further noted that the Supreme Court had upheld the original SIR order. The Commission also referred to the case of 97 voters in Goa who had been left out of the electoral rolls. The Goa Chief Electoral Officer has directed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to visit the voters’ homes and collect the required forms. Of the 97 voters, 81 had already submitted Form 6 seeking inclusion. The ECI also announced extensions to the deadlines for filing claims and objections under the SIR process. In Delhi, the deadline has been extended to October 30, while the disposal deadline has been set for November 30. In Maharashtra, claims and objections can now be filed until October 12, with disposal scheduled by November 10. The Commission also announced measures to strengthen its internal functioning. Agendas for future Commission meetings will be circulated in advance, minutes will be issued and directions given by Election Commissioners to officials will be followed. The press note came amid a controversy over reports claiming differences within the Election Commission over decisions related to electoral rolls and the ongoing SIR exercise. The Commission, however, maintained that its major decisions, including the SIR, were taken collectively and unanimously.