New Delhi, India – The Election Commission of India (ECI) has unveiled a series of procedural transparency enhancements, mandating the advance circulation of meeting agendas and the subsequent release of minutes. This move comes amidst an ongoing controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, an extensive exercise that has drawn significant scrutiny.
ECI Addresses SIR Controversy and Allegations
The decision was finalized at a meeting chaired by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi also in attendance at Nirvachan Sadan. The announcement follows reports alleging that Sandhu and Joshi had, over the past ten months, raised objections regarding aspects of the SIR exercise and the ECI's internal functioning.
In response to these concerns, the ECI affirmed that all decisions related to the SIR exercise, including the June 24, 2025 order for its conduct across all states and Union Territories, received unanimous approval from all three commissioners. Subsequent SIR schedules for various states and UTs also reportedly gained unanimous consent.
The Commission emphasized that differing viewpoints are a natural part of institutional deliberations and reiterated that its orders possess legal sanction and adhere to statutory procedures. Furthermore, the ECI clarified that letters sent by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary pertained to the conduct of an officer deputed to the Commission, not policy matters or the IT division's operations.
Scale of SIR and Voter Concerns
The Special Intensive Revision stands as one of the most extensive electoral roll revision exercises in recent memory. Reports indicate that over 13 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories. This significant scale has intensified public and judicial scrutiny over the processes of voter additions, deletions, and verification.
In Delhi, the Supreme Court notably questioned the methodology behind issuing notices to voters, particularly after more than 33 lakh individuals received notices citing “logical discrepancies.” The court observed that some notices appeared to be issued mechanically and called for robust safeguards to refine the verification process and ensure fairness.