6 min readSep 24, 2026 06:00 AM IST First published on: Sep 24, 2026 at 06:00 AM ISTIn a sprawling democracy with millions of moving parts, electoral rolls must be cleaned up and updated periodically and as the constitutional authority tasked with ensuring free and fair polls, conducting the Special Intensive Revision is the Election Commission’s responsibility. Linking the deletion of voters across states — 13 crore names struck off the draft voter rolls — to electoral outcomes is an argument more political than empirical. This newspaper’s investigation into the ECI’s functioning, however, points to a betrayal of trust — of the people, by one of the country’s most storied institutions. It shines the light into an institution’s black box and reveals a disturbing story. What makes it so compelling is that it cannot be dismissed as the all-too-familiar political thrust and parry that has narrowed the inner lives of several other institutions. All three members of the Commission were handpicked by the NDA government. Yet, two Election Commissioners objected on record — 14 times in 10 months — to steps taken by the Commission as the SIR unfolded. Their concerns were not addressed. By all accounts, they went unheard and unheeded.Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised a string of red flags. They said they were being kept in the dark in a body that should forge a consensus or, failing that, abide by the majority. They said changes to Form 6 for new voters flew in the face of rules and made the exercise more punishing. They said the centralisation of the voter database undercut the ECI’s claims to accountable and decentralised functioning. When their pushback within the four walls of their institution made no dent, they appealed to the Cabinet Secretary, the country’s top bureaucrat. That is heartening — two Commissioners pointing, repeatedly, to the erosion of safeguards and guardrails, checks and balances. But Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar made no attempt to address his colleagues’ concerns. That silence frames the crisis and the institution’s challenge.AdvertisementTHESE revelations connect the dots, outside to inside. Much of what Sandhu and Joshi flagged has echoed, in letter and spirit, concerns already being raised outside the ECI on the SIR. This newspaper, for one, consistently tracked the flaws in the process on the ground. The helpless scramble among the poor and undocumented when it was first rolled out in Bihar. The tortuous layers it added on in West Bengal, where it also invited fears of targeting of minorities and led to the disenfranchisement of nearly 27 lakh voters. The face-offs between election officials and BJP party workers in four booths in Godda, Jharkhand, more recently. It had become clear that the process that was meant to strike a delicate and compassionate balance — between the need to maintain the integrity of the electoral rolls and the imperative to count every legitimate voter in — was tilting against vulnerable voters. It was doing so by shifting the burden of proof onto the voter, by demanding difficult paperwork within unrealistic time-frames, by setting up an appellate process that was unconstrained by any deadlines, going all the way to the edge of the election and even stretching beyond it.In thus showing itself to be distrustful of the Indian voter, the SIR broke with the ECI’s own record and traditions of inclusion. Instead of reaching out to the last voter, it put her on trial, set up a hurdle race for her at every step. She had to stand in long lines, and run around to gather proof that she belonged. Or rather, to disprove the implicit assumption that she didn’t. The SIR was morphing into an opaque and heartless citizenship test. It would not only determine whether or not she could cast her vote, but also whether she could avail of her rightful share of government benefits and schemes.EVEN AS EVIDENCE mounted of the SIR losing its way, the Supreme Court did not ask the ECI the questions it should have. In the past, as the custodian of the constitutional balance, the Court has admirably upheld the poll monitor’s autonomy and independence vis-à-vis the executive. But over the last few months, its reluctance to intervene on behalf of the citizen facing a daunting and oppressive process has seemed, with due respect, troubling.AdvertisementThe SC did intervene in Bihar, and to good effect. It directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as one of the documents, nudged it to give reasons for deletions. But it gave the ECI the benefit of every doubt ever since. In May, ruling on petitions challenging the SIR, it unexceptionably underlined the ECI’s constitutional mandate to ensure accurate and reliable electoral rolls, and also gave it unfettered procedural latitude “in such manner as it may think fit”. It held that the ECI can make only a “limited inquiry into citizenship” but at the same time empowered it to set the stage for a citizenship test by the government’s “Competent Authority”.This latitude cannot continue after what is now known. The Court must no longer turn away from the serious questions about the ECI, they are also on record within. To begin with, Form 6 must be restored to its original version, the one that did not allow the shadow of their parents’ deletion in a deeply contested SIR to hang over their child. It must restore access to the voter database for officials in the states’ electoral machinery. Free and fair elections are not one institutional compact among many, they are the cornerstone of how this nation, through its citizens, shapes its present, and future; they are the reason players respect the rules and losers accept the verdict. The black box has been opened and it will not be shut again. Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi have listened to their conscience, raised key questions. The CEC must answer them, point by point — if it needs a nudge from the highest court, so be it.