The reported differences within the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls are far more significant than an ordinary institutional disagreement. Reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions over issues including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and access to electoral-roll data have naturally raised questions about the functioning of the three-member poll panel. The Election Commission, for its part, has maintained that differing views are a normal part of deliberations and that all major decisions taken over the past year were unanimous.
Dissent within a constitutional institution need not itself be a cause for alarm; indeed, internal scrutiny can strengthen decision-making. But when such disagreements concern the preparation and management of electoral rolls, transparency becomes particularly important because the credibility of an election depends not only on the final result but also on public confidence in the process. The Opposition’s demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is a political position, while the allegations of unilateral decision-making and procedural irregularities remain matters requiring evidence and due examination. At the same time, the EC cannot expect public confidence to be maintained merely by saying that differences are routine. It needs to explain, clearly and comprehensively, what the objections were, how they were considered and how the final decisions were reached.
The larger issue, therefore, is institutional credibility rather than the political battle surrounding the SIR. The Election Commission is entrusted with a constitutional responsibility that demands the highest standards of transparency, collective decision-making and public accountability. If the reported objections were ultimately resolved through proper deliberation and unanimous decisions, the Commission should make that process sufficiently clear to remove doubts. If there were procedural shortcomings, they should be acknowledged and corrected through appropriate institutional mechanisms. Political parties will naturally interpret the controversy through their own interests, but the EC must rise above that contest and provide verifiable answers. The integrity of the electoral process is too important to be left to competing claims and counterclaims.