Full Breakdown
Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Faces Political and Institutional Scrutiny
By Drooid · · How we work
The SIR Controversy — Core Facts
The Election Commission of India launched a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on June 24 2025. The exercise, intended to delete ineligible entries and update voter data, has become the focus of a political row after an investigation reported that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi formally objected on record at least 14 times over SIR decisions during a ten-month period. They alleged that changes to voter-registration Form 6 and centralisation of the electoral-roll database were taken without their knowledge.
The EC says all SIR-related orders, including the original June 2025 order and subsequent phase schedules, were approved unanimously by the three-member panel (Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi). The commission described the recorded objections as “normal part of deliberations” and emphasized that its final decisions carry full legal sanction.
Background & Context
SIR is one of the largest roll-revision exercises in recent Indian electoral history, affecting 30 States/UTs in its first phase and later extending further. The Supreme Court upheld the June 2025 SIR order on May 27 2026, reinforcing its legal standing. The current exercise is striking off more than 13 crore names.
Official Statements & Responses
The EC issued a press release after its Sept 26 2026 meeting, reiterating that all SIR decisions were taken with the panel’s unanimous approval and that internal differences are part of standard multi-member deliberations. It announced procedural reforms: advance circulation of meeting agendas, post-meeting minutes, and a committee—including an independent IIT/IIIT expert—to review the ECINET portal for compliance.
BJP leaders defended the commission. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said the opposition must apologise to constitutional institutions, while Maharashtra’s Devendra Fadnavis dismissed allegations of vote theft. Union Minister G Kishan Reddy highlighted Congress’s past support for the EC in states where it won, accusing the opposition of “political immaturity.”
Opposition figures accused the EC of bias. Rahul Gandhi reiterated his “vote-theft” allegation and demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, linking alleged roll manipulation to broader institutional decay. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta described the demand for resignation as an attempt to divert public attention.
Criticism & Opposition
Congress leaders have organised protests, including a march by Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee president Devender Yadav, resulting in several detentions. Party spokesperson Ragini Nayak Basoya alleged that the EC stalled the statutory special summary revision for first-time voters, introducing a new mandatory parental-registration detail on Form 6A—an amendment she says exceeds the commission’s authority. Former Election Commissioner Om Prakash Rawat noted that decisions must be reached by consensus or majority vote, implying that unilateral action by the CEC would be irregular.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Objection Count: Media reports cite 14 written objections by Sandhu and Joshi; the EC characterises these as routine deliberations, not dissent over final decisions.
- Form 6 Amendments: Opposition claims the EC altered Form 6 without presidential approval; the EC maintains that the form’s declaration was upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Transparency: NDA allies such as Chirag Paswan and N Chandrababu Naidu demanded clarification, later praising the EC’s “unanimous clarification” after it was issued.
What’s Next
- The Congress Working Committee is scheduled to meet in New Delhi on Sept 29 to discuss strategy regarding the SIR controversy.
- The EC will continue to process claims until the extended deadlines of Oct 30 2026 (Delhi) and Nov 30 2026 (nationwide).
- A public interest litigation seeking action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar remains before the Supreme Court, with further hearings anticipated.
