The Blink | Democracy & Governance | October 27, 2026: India’s Election Commission has defended its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, maintaining that major decisions were taken collectively.
But the affidavit leaves important questions unanswered.
An investigation by The Indian Express found that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded concerns about decisions and digital changes they reportedly learned about after implementation.
One controversy concerns Form 6, the statutory application for inclusion in electoral rolls.
The Commission has acknowledged that the presentation of an additional SIR declaration in the online application process could appear to modify the statutory form. On October 21, its Electoral Registration Division decided to separate the two.
If corrective action was necessary, who authorised the original online arrangement?
Why were concerns recorded by two commissioners not resolved before implementation?
The Commission also maintains that Electoral Registration Officers retain statutory control over additions and deletions, while digital systems merely assist them.
That distinction matters. But it does not eliminate the need for independent scrutiny of database access, software permissions and decision-making records.
The Commission has described additional technical review arrangements involving outside experts.
The question is whether those reviews will establish not merely that the system works, but that no unauthorised person or process can alter voter records.
The affidavit is the Commission’s legal response, not a judicial finding that wrongdoing occurred.
Yet institutional credibility requires more than a declaration of unanimity.
If two election commissioners raised concerns about decisions taken in the Commission’s name, the public deserves to know how and when those concerns were addressed.
