Election Commission of India: Gyanesh Kumar Controversy, SIR, Article 324 and Electoral Reforms

The Election Commission of India (ECI) occupies a unique position in India’s constitutional architecture. Entrusted under Article 324 of the Constitution with the superintendence, direction and control of elections, its credibility is inseparable from the credibility of the electoral process itself.

Recent reports concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have therefore raised important questions about the functioning and institutional independence of the ECI. An investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months concerning decisions relating to electoral-roll management, voter registration, deletion of names and the Commission’s IT systems.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), however, has maintained that decisions relating to SIR and other matters were taken unanimously and that observations or objections by individual Commissioners are part of the deliberative process.

What is Gyanesh Kumar Controversy?

The Gyanesh Kumar controversy concerns renewed scrutiny of the Election Commission of India following reports that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, raised formal objections to several decisions concerning electoral-roll management.

According to an investigation by The Indian Express, the two Commissioners reportedly recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months.

The concerns reportedly related to:

• Addition and deletion of voters
• Changes concerning new-voter registration
• Access to electoral-roll databases
• Centralisation of electoral-roll management
• Appeals concerning deleted voters
• Functioning of electoral software
• Internal decision-making within the Commission

The ECI, however, has maintained that its decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken unanimously.

What is the Election Commission of India (ECI) controversy?

The Election Commission controversy centres on reported differences within the three-member Election Commission over the management of electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

According to The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised formal objections at least 14 times over 10 months regarding certain decisions, including changes related to new-voter registration, voter deletions, access to electoral-roll databases and the functioning of election software.

What are the main concerns?

• Voter registration: Questions were reportedly raised over changes connected with Form 6 and requirements for new voters.
• Voter deletion: The large-scale revision of electoral rolls has raised concerns about ensuring that genuine voters are not wrongly excluded.
• Centralisation of data: The two Commissioners reportedly questioned increasing centralisation of electoral-roll databases and restrictions on access for State-level officials.
• Role of technology: The Goa episode highlighted concerns about whether software systems can properly implement decisions taken by Electoral Registration Officers.
• Internal functioning: The reported objections have raised questions about whether major decisions within a multi-member constitutional body are being taken through the required collegial process.
• Institutional independence: The Election Commission controversy has renewed the wider debate over the independence and credibility of the ECI.

What is the key constitutional issue?

Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI has the superintendence, direction and control of elections in India. Since the Commission is a multi-member body, its functioning requires institutional and procedural safeguards.

What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an exercise to comprehensively revise and verify electoral rolls.

The objective of electoral-roll revision is to ensure that:

• Eligible citizens are included.
• Ineligible entries are removed.
• Duplicate entries are identified.
• Incorrect information is corrected.
• Electoral rolls remain accurate and updated.

The SIR began in Bihar in June 2025 and was subsequently expanded to other States and Union Territories.

According to the material cited in the report, the exercise has involved more than 13 crore names in draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories.

Why is SIR controversial?

• The central concern is not whether electoral rolls should be revised.
• They need periodic revision.
• The concern is whether the process provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that genuine voters are not wrongly excluded.

The Gyanesh Kumar controversy is therefore discussed in the wider context of the SIR process, electoral-roll management and institutional functioning.

What did the two Election Commissioners reportedly object to?

The 14 objections: What happened?

The most significant feature of the controversy is that the reported concerns came from within the Election Commission itself.

According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi repeatedly objected to certain decisions which they said had been taken without their knowledge.

Some objections reportedly concerned:

• Voter registration
• Voter deletion
• Restoration of names
• Appeals against restoration orders
• Electoral-roll database access
• Security of voter data
• Changes in administrative responsibilities
• Election IT systems

Four objections were reportedly recorded on a single day.

The objections were also reportedly copied to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and, in some cases, concerned Deputy Election Commissioners.

1. New voters and Form 6

What is Form 6?

• Form 6 is used by an eligible citizen to apply for inclusion of their name in the electoral roll.
• During the SIR process, a new question related to the previous electoral roll was reportedly introduced into the online voter-registration process.
• The question sought information about whether the applicant or their parents/grandparents were present in the electoral roll of the previous SIR.
• According to the investigation, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi had earlier raised concerns about changing Form 6, and Sandhu had agreed with those concerns.
• Later, Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its removal.

Why does this matter?

It raises a basic question of legal authority:

Can a new substantive requirement for voters be introduced through administrative instructions or changes to an online system without following the prescribed legal procedure?

This issue is relevant to the broader Election Commission controversy and to questions concerning electoral-roll safeguards.

2. Who should have access to electoral-roll data?

• This is one of the most important issues in the controversy.
• Electoral-roll preparation in India traditionally involves decentralised administration.
• An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is the statutory authority responsible for electoral-roll functions in a constituency.
• Electoral-roll management is supported by digital systems such as ERONet and ECINet.
• According to the report, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi raised concerns about what he described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database.
• He reportedly proposed an audit to ensure that only the legally authorised officials had credentials to modify voter data.
• Election Commissioner Sandhu later reportedly raised similar concerns about access available to State-level election officials.

Why is decentralisation important?

Imagine a voter record is incorrect.

A local statutory authority should be able to:

• Examine the voter record.
• Verify the documents.
• Hear the concerned person where required.
• Correct the record.
• Record the decision.

If the local authority does not have adequate access to the system, a gap can develop between:

Legal authority → Administrative decision → Digital implementation

That is the core governance concern.

Centralisation: Is it always bad?

No.

Centralisation can provide:

• Uniform standards
• Better coordination
• Faster data processing
• Easier identification of duplicates
• Stronger cybersecurity controls

Decentralisation can provide:

• Local verification
• Ground-level accountability
• Greater accessibility
• Multiple layers of oversight
• Faster resolution of local errors

3. West Bengal: Who authorised the appeals?

• West Bengal became one of the most closely scrutinised States during the SIR process.
• The controversy there also raised questions regarding the handling of appeals involving voters.
• According to the material provided, a large number of cases were sent through judicial and tribunal mechanisms following the Supreme Court’s intervention in the process.

The reported issue raised by Sandhu was:

Who authorised appeals filed on behalf of the ECI against voters whose inclusion had been ordered?

He reportedly sought clarification about:

• Who authorised the appeals?
• Who actually filed them?
• What was the basis for filing them?
• Whether all relevant authorities had been informed.

What is the governance principle here?

Every major administrative action should have a clear:

Authority + Responsibility + Reason + Record

This is known as decision-making traceability.

4. Goa: When software becomes a problem

The Goa episode highlights another important issue — the relationship between technology and administrative authority.

A “logical discrepancy” can arise when the software detects a mismatch while trying to link a voter with a parent or relative in an earlier electoral roll.

For example:

• Name does not match.
• Date/age relationship appears inconsistent.
• Family linkage cannot be established.

Such a technological flag does not necessarily prove that a person is ineligible to vote.

According to the report, Goa’s Electoral Registration Officers examined cases and reportedly found 97 voters eligible.

However, the software reportedly did not provide a mechanism to properly record the reversal of their earlier deletion before the final roll was published.

Technology and Governance

The Election Commission of India controversy therefore provides an excellent example of both the advantages and risks of digital governance.

Advantages of digitisation

• Speed
• Accuracy
• Data integration
• Easier record management
• Detection of duplicate entries
• Better auditability

Risks

• Software errors
• Incorrect data matching
• Centralised points of failure
• Cybersecurity concerns
• Lack of correction mechanisms
• Excessive dependence on technology

Why is internal dissent within the ECI important?

The Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body.

It consists of:

• Chief Election Commissioner
• Two Election Commissioners

The Commissioners are equal in rank for the Commission’s decision-making, while the CEC is generally described as first among equals.

Therefore, the CEC does not simply function as a single-person authority over the other Commissioners.

Under Section 18 of the 2023 Act, the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously.

If the Commissioners disagree, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.

What does Article 324 say?

Article 324 Election Commission provides the constitutional foundation of the Election Commission.

It gives the ECI:

• Superintendence
  • Overall supervisory responsibility.
• Direction
  • Power to provide directions for election administration.
• Control
  • Authority over the conduct and management of elections within its constitutional sphere.

The ECI conducts elections to:

• Lok Sabha
• Rajya Sabha
• State Legislative Assemblies
• State Legislative Councils
• President
• Vice-President

Constitutional Framework

Article 324

• Article 324 provides the ECI with the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.

Article 326

• Article 326 provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to constitutional and statutory qualifications.

Representation of the People Act, 1950

Important provisions include:

• Section 16: Disqualifications for registration in electoral rolls.
• Section 19: Conditions relating to age and ordinary residence.
• Section 21: Preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
• Section 21(3): Power to order special revision.

2023 Act

Parliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Under the Act, the Selection Committee consists of:

• Prime Minister — Chairperson
• Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
• Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha

The replacement of the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister has generated debate regarding executive influence and institutional independence.

Why Does ECI Independence Matter?

The ECI’s independence is essential because it administers the electoral process through which citizens exercise democratic choice.

• Institutional Independence
  • The ECI should be able to take decisions without undue external influence.
• Procedural Transparency
  • Major decisions concerning electoral rolls should follow clear and legally established procedures.
• Public Confidence
  • Electoral legitimacy depends not only on election outcomes but also on confidence in the process of voter registration and electoral administration.
• Accountability
  • Independence does not mean absence of accountability. A constitutional body must remain subject to the Constitution, law and appropriate institutional scrutiny.

Don’t confuse ECI with State Election Commission

This is a common Prelims mistake.

Election Commission of India: Key Officials

1. Gyanesh Kumar — Chief Election Commissioner of India

Gyanesh Kumar took charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India on 19 February 2025. He is a 1988-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the Kerala cadre.

Educational Qualifications

• B.Tech in Civil Engineering — IIT Kanpur
• Business Finance — ICFAI, India
• Environmental Economics — Harvard University, USA

Experience in the Government of Kerala

He has held several important administrative positions in Kerala, including:

• Sub Collector, Adoor
• Managing Director, Kerala State Development Corporation for SC/ST
• Municipal Commissioner, Corporation of Cochin
• Managing Director, Kerala State Cooperative Bank
• District Collector, Ernakulam
• Secretary, Goshree Islands Development Authority
• Managing Director, Trivandrum Airport Development Society
• Resident Commissioner, Kerala House, New Delhi

As Secretary to the Government of Kerala, he handled departments and programmes including:

• Finance Resources
• Fast Track Projects
• Public Works Department
• Modernising Government Programme
• Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs

Experience in the Government of India

At the Union level, Gyanesh Kumar served as:

• Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence
• Joint Secretary & Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
• Secretary, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
• Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation

He superannuated on 31 January 2024 and was subsequently appointed Election Commissioner in the Election Commission of India on 15 March 2024.

2. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu — Election Commissioner

Sukhbir Singh Sandhu joined the Election Commission as an Election Commissioner on 15 March 2024. He is a 1988-batch IAS officer of the Uttarakhand cadre.

Administrative Experience

He served as:

• Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand — July 2021 to January 2024
• Chairman, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) — 2019 to 2021
• Secretary to the Lokpal — briefly in February 2024

He has also served as Collector of:

• Haridwar
• Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida)
• Udham Singh Nagar

Between 2007 and 2014, he served as Principal Secretary to four Chief Ministers across three political parties.

Educational Qualifications

• MBBS — Government Medical College, Amritsar
• Master’s in History — Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
• Law Degree

3. Vivek Joshi — Election Commissioner

Vivek Joshi joined the Election Commission as an Election Commissioner on 19 February 2025. He is a 1989-batch IAS officer of the Haryana cadre.

Administrative Experience

He served as:

• Chief Secretary of Haryana
• Senior positions in the Ministry of Textiles
• Senior positions in the Ministry of Women and Child Development
• Senior positions in the Ministry of Finance

In Haryana, he served as Deputy Commissioner of:

• Jind
• Hisar
• Panchkula

He also served as Divisional Commissioner, Ambala.

Other Positions

• Board member, Reserve Bank of India
• Board member, State Bank of India

Educational Qualifications

• PhD in International Economics — Graduate Institute, Geneva
• B.E. in Mechanical Engineering (1987) — Roorkee University, now IIT Roorkee

Quick Revision

How are Election Commissioners appointed?

The Chief Election Commissioner selection process is governed by Article 324 and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of:

• Prime Minister — Chairperson
• Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha — Member
• Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister — Member

The President formally appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners under the constitutional framework.

What was the Anoop Baranwal case?

The Anoop Baranwal case — Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) judgment — is important for understanding the appointment of Election Commissioners.

The Supreme Court prescribed an interim arrangement under which appointments were to be recommended by a committee consisting of:

• Prime Minister
• Leader of Opposition
• Chief Justice of India

This arrangement was intended to operate until Parliament enacted a law governing appointments.

Parliament subsequently enacted the 2023 Act, which changed the composition of the selection committee.

Why does ECI independence matter?

The Election Commission plays a central role in India’s democratic system.

Its independence has two dimensions.

Structural independence

This includes:

• Appointment process
• Tenure
• Removal mechanism
• Financial autonomy
• Secretariat and personnel

Functional independence

This includes:

• Independent decision-making
• Transparent procedures
• Operational autonomy
• Control over election administration
• Institutional accountability

A constitutional institution must not only be independent in law; its procedures should also inspire public confidence in its impartial functioning.

CEC Gyanesh Kumar Removal Issue: What You Need to Know

Why is the CEC facing a removal motion?

The reported internal disagreements within the Election Commission have also led to renewed political demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The issue is connected with the wider Gyanesh Kumar controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections to certain decisions and procedures.

However, students should clearly distinguish between:

• Political demand for removal
• and
• Actual constitutional removal of a CEC
• A demand or motion does not mean that the CEC has been removed.

How is the CEC removed?

The Constitution provides the CEC with a high degree of protection from arbitrary removal.

Article 324(5)

The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only:

• “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”
• In practical terms, this means removal requires the parliamentary process applicable to removal of a Supreme Court judge.
• The 2023 Act also contains provisions relating to resignation and removal.
• This makes removal of Chief Election Commissioner an important constitutional and Polity topic for competitive examinations.

What are the grounds for removal?

The grounds are:

• Proved misbehaviour
  • This refers to serious misconduct established through the prescribed process.
• Incapacity
  • This refers to an inability to discharge the functions of the office.

A government, opposition party or group of MPs cannot simply remove a CEC because they disagree with an ECI decision.

The prescribed constitutional process has to be followed.

What about the other Election Commissioners?

There is an important distinction.

• Chief Election Commissioner
  • The CEC has protection similar to that provided to a Supreme Court judge regarding removal.
• Other Election Commissioners
  • Under Article 324(5), an Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Step-by-step: How does removal of the CEC work?

The process can be simplified as follows:

• Step 1: Notice of motion
  • Members of Parliament initiate a removal motion alleging proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Step 2: Required signatures
  • The motion must satisfy the prescribed minimum number of MPs required for admission.
• Step 3: Admission
  • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha considers whether the motion should be admitted under the applicable procedure.
• Step 4: Inquiry
  • If admitted, an inquiry is conducted according to the statutory parliamentary procedure.
  • The allegations have to be examined rather than being treated as automatically established.
• Step 5: Parliamentary approval
  • For removal of a Supreme Court judge-type constitutional officeholder, the required special majority applies.
• Step 6: President’s order
  • If Parliament passes the removal address with the required majority in both Houses, the President issues the removal order.

Has any CEC ever been removed?

• No Chief Election Commissioner has ever been removed from office through this constitutional removal process.
• This makes the protection given to the office particularly significant when studying the independence of constitutional institutions.

Key challenges highlighted by the controversy

The issues above form an important part of the wider Election Commission controversy and can be useful for CGPSC Mains answers.

What reforms are needed?

1. Strengthen internal decision-making

Major decisions concerning electoral rolls and election administration should have:

• Clear approval procedures
• Written records
• Proper circulation among Commissioners
• Institutional audit trails

2. Strengthen electoral-roll safeguards

Before deletion, eligible voters should have:

Notice + Verification + Hearing + Appeal

This can reduce the possibility of wrongful exclusion.

3. Improve digital accountability

Electoral software should provide:

• Audit trails
• Role-based access
• Independent security audits
• Data-change logs
• Reversal/correction mechanisms
• Clear responsibility for each modification

4. Protect decentralised statutory authority

Technology should not unnecessarily weaken the role of Electoral Registration Officers and other legally designated authorities.

5. Strengthen institutional independence

Reforms can be considered regarding:

• Appointment procedures
• Financial autonomy
• Independent secretariat
• Personnel management
• Post-retirement safeguards

6. Follow statutory procedures

Changes affecting voter registration or electoral administration should have a clear legal basis and follow the prescribed statutory and regulatory process.

The bigger lesson: Constitutional morality

The Gyanesh Kumar controversy is ultimately about more than one electoral-roll revision exercise.

It raises a broader question:

How should constitutional institutions function in a democracy?

The answer lies in:

Transparency + Accountability + Institutional autonomy + Rule of law + Due process

A strong constitutional institution is not one where disagreement never occurs.

Rather, it is one where:

• Decisions have a clear legal basis.
• Dissent can be recorded.
• Procedures are transparent.
• Technology remains accountable to law.
• Citizens have effective remedies.
• Institutional independence is maintained.

Challenges

The present debate highlights several challenges:

• Maintaining accurate electoral rolls at very large scale
• Preventing wrongful deletion
• Handling migration and change of residence
• Addressing documentation difficulties
• Ensuring reliable digital systems
• Balancing centralised technology with local statutory authority
• Maintaining transparency in institutional decision-making
• Preserving public confidence in the ECI

Way Forward

• Strengthen Electoral-Roll Transparency
  • The ECI should ensure clear procedures for addition, deletion and restoration of voter names.
• Ensure Human Oversight
  • Automated or software-generated discrepancies should not result in final exclusion without appropriate human verification.
• Improve Digital Accountability
  • Electoral databases should have:
    • Role-based access
    • Audit trails
    • Independent technical audits
    • Backup mechanisms
    • Clear responsibility for changes
• Strengthen Institutional Procedures
  • Major decisions should follow clearly documented transaction-of-business procedures, ensuring meaningful participation of all Commissioners.
• Protect the Right to Appeal
  • Citizens affected by deletion should receive accessible, time-bound and effective opportunities to challenge the decision.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding internal objections within the ECI highlights the importance of institutional transparency and procedural integrity in electoral administration.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) can help improve the accuracy of electoral rolls, but large-scale revision must be accompanied by effective verification, accessible appeals, reliable technology and protection against wrongful exclusion.

The broader objective should be to create an electoral system that is accurate, inclusive, transparent and institutionally accountable.

Also Read:

1. Declining Fertility Rate in India falls to US & European level
2. Adivasi School Thik Karo Compaign Started by CJP