Gyanesh Kumar and SIR controversy explained: 5 key persons, 14 objections and what happened inside ECI

PTC Web Desk:  Over the past few days, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become the centre of a political storm over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Opposition leaders and the Cockroach Janata Party have levelled serious allegations against Kumar, while the Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were taken according to law and that differences of opinion among commissioners are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member institution.

At the heart of the controversy is an investigation by The Indian Express, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 formal objections over a 10-month period on issues connected with voter registration, deletion of names, electoral-roll databases and the SIR process.|

Also Read | CJP gives CEC Gyanesh Kumar 48-hour resignation deadline over SIR, threatens nationwide protest

Also Read | ‘One-man rule’ at Election Commission? Opposition demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s removal; SIR at centre of dispute

So, what exactly happened? And who are the key people involved?

Where did the controversy begin?

The SIR exercise began in Bihar in June 2025 and was subsequently expanded to other states and Union Territories. The exercise was aimed at checking and updating electoral rolls.

According to The Indian Express, more than 13 crore names were removed from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the process. The scale of the exercise turned voter-list revision into a major political issue.

The latest controversy, however, is not only about the number of names removed. It concerns questions raised from within the Election Commission itself.

The newspaper reported that Sandhu and Joshi objected to several decisions and, in some instances, alleged that actions had been taken without their knowledge.

What were the five major issues?

1. The Form-6 controversy

Form-6 is used by citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. According to the Indian Express investigation, a new question linked new voters to the electoral roll from the previous SIR, asking whether the applicant or their parents or grandparents appeared on that earlier list.

The report said Joshi objected to the change, arguing that the form could not be altered in that manner without changing the relevant rules. Sandhu subsequently recorded his objection as well and described the change as unauthorised and illegal.

2. Who controls the voter database?

Another dispute concerned access to the digital voter database. Electoral Registration Officers, or EROs, are responsible for preparing electoral rolls at the constituency level. Sandhu and Joshi reportedly raised concerns that access to the database was becoming increasingly centralised.

Joshi called for an audit to establish that only authorised statutory officials could make changes to voter records. Sandhu later raised similar concerns about access available to state-level election officials.

The issue is significant because the Election Commission has traditionally described electoral-roll preparation as a decentralised process.

3. The West Bengal appeal controversy

West Bengal became another major point of contention. The Election Commission had earlier told the Supreme Court that 27.16 lakh voters were removed during the SIR process after cases involving alleged “logical discrepancies” were examined. More than 22 lakh of those voters subsequently filed appeals seeking restoration of their names.

The Commission also reported another 16.10 lakh appeals seeking deletion of voters whose names had been included following judicial scrutiny.

According to the Indian Express report, Sandhu questioned who had authorised these appeals and who had actually filed them on behalf of the Commission. He reportedly said that he, Joshi and the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer had not been informed about the process.

4. The Goa software problem

The fourth issue involved Goa. Following Supreme Court directions, voters flagged for discrepancies were supposed to receive an opportunity to submit documents and make their case before the final electoral roll was published.

According to the Indian Express investigation, local officials found 97 voters eligible for inclusion but the software did not provide an option to restore their names. The Goa CEO's office reportedly wrote repeatedly to senior election officials seeking a technical solution, but the necessary option was not enabled before the final list was published.

5. Who has the final say inside the ECI?

This is perhaps the larger institutional question behind the entire dispute.

The Election Commission is a three-member constitutional body comprising the CEC and two Election Commissioners. The recent reports have raised questions about whether important decisions were being taken with the knowledge and approval of all three members.

The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi invoked provisions of the 2023 law governing the Commission and objected to communications being issued in the name of the ECI without the required approval.

Who are the five key figures?

Gyanesh Kumar: The current Chief Election Commissioner and the central figure in the controversy.

Sukhbir Singh Sandhu: Election Commissioner who, according to the investigation, recorded seven of the reported objections independently and joined Joshi in others.

Vivek Joshi: Election Commissioner who also raised objections concerning voter registration, database access and other SIR-related matters.

Seema Khanna: Director General of IT at the Election Commission, whose division oversees the digital systems involved in electoral-roll management.

T V Somanathan: Cabinet Secretary, to whom Sandhu and Joshi reportedly wrote regarding concerns over changes in the functioning and oversight of the Commission's IT systems.

What does the Election Commission say?

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections indicate an institutional breakdown.

Its position is that differences, suggestions and objections are normal in a multi-member constitutional body. The Commission has maintained that its decisions, including those concerning SIR, were taken with the required approval and in accordance with legal procedures.

That leaves the central issue unresolved: whether the objections reported by the two commissioners were simply part of internal deliberations before decisions were finalised, or whether they point to deeper disagreements over how the Commission was functioning.

For now, the controversy is moving beyond the question of voter-list revision and into a larger debate over transparency, institutional decision-making and the management of India's electoral rolls.