Two ECs objected to SIR, but panel says unanimous

In a quiet New Delhi office, a note circulates about two Election Commissioners who flagged 14 issues but the room keeps its tone even²¹. The Indian Express report names Sandhu and Joshi, saying they objected to changes from Form 6 to centralised ERONet controls and voter deletions during the Special Intensive Revision, all while the Chief Election Commissioner was party to the final decisions^23,20.

The clash is not just about forms and software; it has become a political flashpoint as opposition parties demand action, impeachment talk, and calls for the CEC to step down^10,9,15. Yet EC sources insist the act of dissent never broke the chain of consensus, arguing that objections were noted and considered while decisions remained united across the triad of officials^7,21,24.

The debate extends from Goa to West Bengal and Goa and beyond, with detailed timelines and lists of states showing where deletions and additions did or did not occur, all framed by a broader worry about who truly controls the voter roll and the IT backbone that supports it^11,20,26.

The debate now centers on what constitutes a normal dialogue inside the commission, and what counts as undermining the very process meant to safeguard voters, as opposition leaders push Parliament, the Supreme Court, and others to weigh in and demand transparency about the SIR process^9,32.