Election Commission Rift: Timeline of Objections Raised by Two Commissioners Over Voter Rolls

When did Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi begin raising concerns over voter registration and electoral-roll management within the Election Commission of India (ECI)?

An investigation by The Indian Express shows that concerns were being recorded internally for months before the differences became public, with the two Election Commissioners formally objecting at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge or approval.

The objections covered new voter registration, electoral-roll database access, deletion and restoration of names, and the functioning of the ECI's IT systems.

Here is the timeline of the key instances reported by The Indian Express:

November 4, 2025: First warning over IT restrictions

The concerns over voter registration did not begin with ECINet.

On November 4, 2025, acting on Sandhu's directions, Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar wrote to senior ECI officials that the statutory functions of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), District Election Officers (DEOs) and Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) had to be exercised by those officers themselves.

The communication also said IT systems had to remain compliant with the law and should not restrict the statutory powers of these officials.

January 2, 2026: ERO discretion flagged again

As the SIR process expanded, concerns over the IT system resurfaced.

On January 2, Sanjay Kumar wrote to the ECI's IT division asking it to ensure that the system did not restrict an ERO's discretion to act in matters concerning the electoral roll.

ECINet, the ECI's new technology platform, was subsequently launched on January 22.

April 16: Sandhu objects to communications without Commission approval

On April 16, Sandhu recorded that the IT division had developed several new modules and portals without bringing them to his knowledge or placing them before the Commission.

He said he had learnt about some developments through the media and sought necessary approvals before such activities were undertaken.

On the same broader issue of Commission decision-making, Sandhu also told senior officials that communications were being issued in the name of the ECI without approval from the Commission.

April 24: Joshi raises a similar objection

Eight days later, on April 24, Joshi recorded a similar concern, saying several communications were being disseminated in the name of the ECI without the requisite approval of the Commission.

He referred to Article 324 of the Constitution and the 2023 law governing the Election Commission.

May 16: Joshi objects to Form 6 change

A more direct dispute over new voter registration came on May 16.

Joshi objected to a proposal to modify Form 6, the statutory form used by citizens seeking inclusion in the electoral roll.

He recorded that Form 6 could not be altered through an SIR order or guideline because it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He said the rules would first have to be amended through the appropriate process.

May 19: Sandhu concurs

On May 19, Sandhu concurred with Joshi's objection on file.

Despite the two Commissioners' concerns, the Form 6 change was subsequently implemented on the ECI's ECINet portal.

May 29: Joshi flags centralisation of voter database

On May 29, Joshi raised another concern — this time over what he described as the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database.”

He proposed an audit, including the involvement of an outside IIT expert, to establish that only the concerned statutory authorities had credentials to make changes to voter data.

He also proposed a mechanism to check whether ECINet complied with the law and whether changes to the electoral-roll systems were being brought before the Commission.

July 12: Form 6 change

On July 12, The Indian Express first reported that the ECI's ECINET portal had introduced a new declaration section into the online version of Form 6, the statutory form used for new voter enrolment. The new section asked applicants whether their own name, or that of their parents or grandparents, appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR.

This date is important, however, because it was the date the change was reported publicly, not the date when the Commissioners first objected. Their objections had already been recorded in May.

July 13: Sandhu backs database audit

On July 13, Sandhu endorsed Joshi's proposal for an audit of the electoral-roll database and said it would improve the system and should be placed before the Commission.

On August 14, Sandhu recorded that he was unaware of any action taken on the two Commissioners' notes.

July 28–30: IT oversight dispute escalates

The dispute over control of the electoral-roll IT system intensified on July 28, when Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, given additional charge of administration, changed the work allocation within the ECI.

The change removed Sanjay Kumar from oversight of the IT division.

On July 29, Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan, describing the order as a violation of the law governing the Commission and seeking appropriate action.

On July 30, the two Commissioners jointly set aside the order and directed that the previous work allocation continue until the Commission reached consensus on any change.

August 13: Sandhu calls Form 6 change ‘unauthorised and illegal’

On August 13, after The Indian Express reported the Form 6 change, Sandhu referred to Joshi's May 16 objection and recorded his own objection.

He described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and said it “must be removed immediately.”

August 14: Sandhu raises ERONet access concerns

On August 14, Sandhu put on record his concerns over access to ERONet, the electoral-roll management system.

He said CEOs, DEOs and EROs had reported that they did not have proper and complete access and argued that their statutory powers had been curtailed by centralised control of the system at the Director General (IT) level.

Sandhu said the DG (IT) did not have legal authority to restrict the statutory officials' access and directed that full access be restored.

August: West Bengal appeals questioned

In August, Sandhu also questioned the process through which appeals were filed against voters whom judicial officers had allowed to remain on West Bengal's electoral rolls.

He asked who had authorised the appeals on behalf of the ECI and who had actually filed them. He also recorded that neither he nor Joshi, nor the current Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, had been informed about the basis or process of filing the appeals.

September 9: First full meeting in four months

The sequence culminated in the three-member Commission holding its first full meeting in four months on September 9, according to The Indian Express.

The report stated that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months, with four objections made on a single day.

The ECI's internal disagreements therefore stretched from concerns over whether IT systems could restrict the statutory powers of election officials to specific objections over how new voters could be registered and who could alter electoral-roll data.