Full Breakdown
Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa Calls for Scrutiny of Phase 3 of Electoral-Roll Revision
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Issue: Demand to Suspend Phase 3 of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavava has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to halt Phase 3 of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls until the body provides a detailed account of its decision-making process. Lavasa wants clarification on whether objections raised by two of the three current commissioners constitute formal dissent and whether the legal procedures for changes to voter-registration forms and the centralised roll database were followed.
Background & Context: What the SIR Aims to Achieve
The SIR is a multi-phase exercise intended to purge ineligible entries—such as deceased or duplicate voters—from the electoral rolls. The first two phases were completed in 2025 and early 2026 across most states. Phase 3 is being implemented in 16 states and three Union Territories, focusing on mapping, logical verification and the removal of questionable entries.
Data & Statistics: Appeals Highlight Potential Flaws
Lavasa cited the West Bengal appeals process, noting that approximately 38 lakh appeals were filed after the second phase. He said 93 % of the disposed cases were decided in favour of voters whose names had been deleted, suggesting that the deletion mechanism may have been over-reaching.
Official Statements & Responses
- Election Commission’s Position – The ECI maintains that all decisions taken over the past year were unanimous and that written notes, observations and technical suggestions are part of normal institutional deliberations. It asserts that the SIR was carried out in accordance with existing law and established procedures.
- Lavasa’s Counter-Points – Lavasa stresses that a “difference of opinion” does not automatically amount to formal dissent and that the commission should disclose the full record of communications, including whether the two dissenting commissioners ultimately agreed with the final decisions. He also questions why a commissioner would write to the Cabinet Secretary about internal functioning, calling for “checks and balances” to strengthen accountability.
- Legal Concerns Raised – The reported objections focus on unilateral changes to Form 6 (the new-voter registration form) and the centralisation of the ERO-Net system, which Lavasa says may impede the statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). He points to a case in Goa where an ERO could not add 97 eligible voters because the software blocked the update.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether the two commissioners’ notes constitute formal dissent or merely internal observations. The ECI describes them as routine technical suggestions, while Lavasa argues that formal dissent requires opposing positions on a specific agenda before the commission. No public record of the communications has been released, leaving the precise nature of the objections unclear.
Why It Matters
If the SIR’s methodology allows wrongful deletions, eligible voters could be disenfranchised, undermining confidence in the electoral roll’s integrity. Conversely, an unchecked roll may retain ineligible names, raising concerns about vote-inflation. Clarifying the legal basis for changes to Form 6 and the access rights within the centralised database is central to safeguarding the democratic process.
Verbatim Quote
- “There have to be checks and balances,” — Ashok Lavasa, former election commissioner
These statements encapsulate Lavasa’s concerns about procedural legality, authorised access for EROs, and the broader call for institutional checks.