This article goes to the heart of democracy. It raises a fundamental question: are the systems meant to safeguard India’s electoral process functioning as they should?
At its core, this is a story about investigative journalism and a journalist examining how decisions are made within the Election Commission. So, let’s get into it.
The Election Commission of India is responsible for safeguarding voter registration and electoral rolls. So, when two of its three commissioners formally raised objections 14 times over 10 months, it drew attention.
The findings emerged from an Indian Express investigation by Ritika Chopra, published on September 23, 2026.
First, let’s understand who Ritika Chopra is. She has nearly 19 years of experience covering politics, governance and public policy. She joined The Indian Express in 2015 after working with The Economic Times, Hindustan Times and Mail Today.
Her reporting on elections and the Election Commission has earned her several prestigious honours, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award.
The commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, reportedly said that some decisions were issued without their knowledge. Their objections concerned the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, a voter-roll revision exercise.
The investigation stated that more than 13 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls.
One flashpoint involved Form 6, which is used by new voters. A declaration asked whether applicants, their parents or grandparents appeared on the previous SIR roll.
Joshi and Sandhu argued that the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised” and “illegal”.
Another concern involved ECINet, the digital system used to manage electoral-roll data.
The commissioners questioned whether control was becoming increasingly centralised in Delhi, potentially limiting access for field officials.
In Goa, the investigation reported that 97 eligible voters faced problems after the software blocked a decision made by a local official.
West Bengal raised another set of questions. The investigation examined appeals linked to voter deletions and restorations, including cases in which multiple appeals appeared to have been filed through a single official login.
This detail matters because voter appeals would ordinarily be expected to reflect genuine individual actions.
If numerous appeals are processed through one official login, it could indicate administrative bulk processing, shared credentials or unauthorised access. However, this alone does not prove wrongdoing.
Potential concerns could include fabricated appeals, wrongful voter deletions or additions, or manipulation of electoral records.
The investigation also noted that the full three-member Commission did not meet between May and September 9.
Under the 2023 law, the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. If commissioners disagree, decisions are made by majority.
The Election Commission has disputed the interpretation of these events. It has said that internal disagreements are normal and that decisions, including those related to SIR, were approved unanimously. It has also defended ECINet’s security protocols.
Chopra’s investigation ultimately raises a broader institutional question: who actually makes the decisions that affect voter rolls, and how are those decisions implemented on the ground?
If commissioners disagree, whose view prevails? How much control rests with field officials, senior officials or software systems?
These questions matter because electoral rolls directly determine who is eligible to vote.
