'Differing views part of decision-making': Election Commission pushes back against criticism

Differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberation in any institution, the Election Commission of India (ECI) said on Wednesday as it pushed back against criticism of its functioning and reports of internal dissent.

In a press note, ECI also said that all its digital platforms, including ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorised tampering or manipulation, and that all its actions were legal.

Poll panel calls internal views part of deliberation

“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a 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 authorized to give his suggestions to the commission for improving the electoral system,” the note said.

ECI said any “operational queries or inputs” by commission members were part of standard administrative practice aimed at “safeguarding voter rights” and added that suggestions given by commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes.

Also read: Why ECI software ERONET is at the centre of the row over SIR

ECI cites constitutional and statutory mandate

“The ECI is a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. 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,” the note added.

News reports had said election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months, describing decisions as having been taken without their knowledge. ECI’s response did not dispute this claim but said these were routine exchanges.

Also read: Two commissioners, one CEC, no veto: How the Election Commission decides

Commission highlights wider reform measures

“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture. In recent months, the commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country,” the note said.

“All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full commission in the past one year.”

ECI also dismissed criticism of its software and digital networks. “The commission’s digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data security protocols to prevent unauthorized tampering, manipulation, etc. IT security checks and audit controls are standard cybersecurity measures implemented across national databases. Statutory authorities, including Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and District Election Officers (DEOs), function as per statutory powers for registration and deletion under law,” it said.

Also read: ‘Invisible hand’: Opposition questions ECI after report on commissioners’ SIR concerns

Officials clarify Form 6 controversy

Separately, officials said that claims that Form 6 was altered without legal sanction was inaccurate. “The ECI’s own SIR order of May 2026 had already created a separate declaration form, to be filed alongside Form 6, well before the July rollout. This declaration form, not Form 6 itself, carries the questions on a voter’s or relative’s presence in the last SIR roll. Amending a statutory form and adding a linked declaration are two different legal acts,” the official said.

Officials also pushed back on the widely cited figure of roughly 130 million voter deletions, calling it misleading. They also said that the 3.8 million appeals filed in West Bengal were not filed by ECI. “On 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court held that the ECI has the power to conduct a special intensive revision, under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950…The court reviewed the ECI’s procedure and did not find it disproportionate or contrary to law.”