ECI pushes back on dissent reports, says internal notes show only 'one part of the picture'

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday (September 23, 2026) responded to reports of internal dissent and allegedly "illegal" decisions, stating that all its actions have been carried out in accordance with the relevant laws and instructions. Highlighting "certain specific" internal notes or observations spread over a 10-month period, while overlooking a much larger body of approvals and decisions, gives only "one part of the picture", the poll body said.

The response followed a report in The Indian Express which claimed that two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had formally recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months. According to the report, the Commissioners said major decisions were being taken in the name of the full Election Commission without their knowledge, and described several of them as "unauthorised and illegal".

The report also stated that both Commissioners had flagged changes to Form 6, used for fresh voter registration, and the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database. It quoted them as warning that "centralised software now overrides ground-level Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decisions, blocking eligible voters".

The Commission first issued a source-based clarification, saying: "All decisions of the Election Commission of India, including SIR [the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls], have been unanimous and with the approval of both the Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner."

A formal written statement followed. "The Commission operates as a multi-member constitutional body. Written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour. All actions of ECI have been in accordance of laws and instructions of the Commission," it said.

The statement said operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice, aimed at safeguarding voter rights, and that suggestions given by the Commissioners were meant to further improve electoral processes.

Differing views and observations, the ECI said, are a normal part of deliberation in any institution and form part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. "Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorised to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system," the statement said.

On the scope of the reporting, the Commission argued that highlighting select internal notes over 10 months, while overlooking the far larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives, gives only one part of the picture. It said that in recent months it has issued numerous instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken several electoral reforms, including electoral roll revisions such as the SIR across the country. These, it said, were the outcome of unanimous decisions of the full Commission over the past year.

"All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures under The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023," the statement said.

On concerns about its digital systems, the Commission said platforms such as ECINet operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering and manipulation, and that IT security checks and audit controls are standard cybersecurity measures implemented across national databases.

The ECI is a three-member constitutional body headed by the Chief Election Commissioner, constituted under Article 324 of the Constitution. Under the 2023 Act, the Commission's business is conducted by its members jointly, and decisions are taken collectively.

The Commission's statement did not address each specific objection listed in the report individually. The claims made in the report and the denials issued by the ECI now stand as the two publicly available accounts of the matter, and no independent verification of either has been placed in the public domain.