'EC response leaves key SIR questions unanswered', says Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor Wednesday said the Election Commission’s response to reports of repeated objections by two Election Commissioners over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls did not appear to answer several specific questions, and called for a “point-by-point, documentary clarification” from the poll panel.

Tharoor’s remarks came after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and communications they said were issued without their knowledge or approval. The issues included changes to the statutory Form 6 for new voter registration, additions and deletions from electoral rolls, appeals concerning voters whose names had been restored, and control over the electoral roll database.

Tharoor lists questions

Reacting to the Election Commission’s statement, Tharoor acknowledged its position that internal observations were a normal part of institutional deliberations, decisions followed the law, digital systems had security controls and final decisions over the past year had been unanimous.

However, the Thiruvananthapuram MP said the statement did not appear to address several specific issues raised by the investigation.

Tharoor asked whether the 14 reported objections had in fact been formally recorded and, if so, what action was taken on each. He also sought the specific legal basis for changes made to Form 6, particularly after objections were reportedly recorded by the two Election Commissioners.

He questioned what happened to concerns over the centralisation of access to the electoral roll database and IT controls, and sought an explanation for a reported case in Goa involving 97 voters whose names were left out of the final electoral roll despite orders for their inclusion.

Tharoor also asked who authorised appeals against voters whose inclusion had been restored and sought details about reported communications by the two Election Commissioners to the Cabinet Secretary over changes in the functioning of the poll panel’s IT system.

“Were any communications issued in the name of the Commission without the requisite approval, as reported?” Tharoor asked.

‘Unanimity does not explain objections’

The Congress leader argued that there was a distinction between the Election Commission saying its final decisions were unanimous and explaining how objections recorded during the decision-making process were handled.

“The distinction seems important — saying that final decisions were unanimous does not, by itself, explain what happened to objections raised during the decision-making process,” Tharoor said.

Given the importance of electoral institutions, he said the questions deserved to be placed on the public record and answered transparently. He urged the Election Commission to issue a detailed documentary clarification instead of treating its general statement as a complete response to the investigation.

The controversy centres on reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi concerning some of the most consequential aspects of the SIR, which has been conducted across states and Union Territories.

EC says decisions unanimous

The Election Commission, responding to the report Wednesday, maintained that differing views and observations were normal during deliberations in any institution and said all its official orders and administrative directions carried full legal sanction and followed established statutory procedures.

The poll panel said not only the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners but every officer of the institution was authorised to offer suggestions for improving the electoral system.

It maintained that operational queries or inputs raised by members during the drafting stage were part of standard administrative practice intended to safeguard voters’ rights. The suggestions made by the commissioners, it said, were aimed at further improving electoral processes.

The Commission also asserted that its decisions, including those concerning the SIR, had ultimately been taken unanimously with the approval of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi.

Form 6, database questioned

The reported internal objections, however, went beyond the broader decision to conduct the SIR. One concerned changes made to Form 6, the statutory form used by citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.

The investigation reported that the form began asking applicants whether they or their parents or grandparents existed in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR. Joshi had reportedly raised concerns earlier that Form 6 could not be changed in this manner without an amendment to the relevant rules, with Sandhu subsequently describing the change as “unauthorised and illegal”.

Another set of objections concerned what the commissioners reportedly described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database. They raised questions over whether Electoral Registration Officers and other statutory authorities at the state level continued to have complete access and control over electoral roll systems.

The report also said Sandhu questioned who authorised appeals in West Bengal against voters whose inclusion had been ordered during the SIR dispute, while the two commissioners separately raised concerns over changes in the allocation of work relating to the Election Commission’s IT infrastructure.

Under the 2023 law governing the Election Commission, its business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. Where the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners differ, decisions are to be taken according to the majority view.

The reported objections have triggered a wider political debate over whether differences within the three-member Commission were adequately reflected in decisions concerning the SIR. The Election Commission has rejected suggestions that its final decisions lacked the approval of the full Commission.