New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Saturday sought to clarify the controversy surrounding its ECINet platform, electoral-roll management and reported differences among the three election commissioners. The clarification came after Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi held their first full meeting amid reports of internal disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and the functioning of the poll panel’s technology systems.
At the centre of the controversy are concerns reportedly raised by Sandhu and Joshi over the centralisation of electoral-roll data and access to the ECI’s digital systems, including ECINet and its predecessor ERONet.
Why Did Sandhu and Joshi Write to the Cabinet Secretary?
According to an investigation by The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan in July after changes to an administrative work-allocation order within the Election Commission.
The two commissioners reportedly argued that the changes could concentrate oversight of the Commission’s IT and electoral-roll functions. They described the move as a violation of the legal framework governing the Commission and sought appropriate action.
The two commissioners subsequently jointly set aside the disputed work-allocation order, saying the changes had been made without adequate justification and directing that the earlier arrangement continue until the Commission reached consensus on a new one.
What Were the ECINet Concerns?
One of the major issues was the access available to officials responsible for maintaining electoral rolls.
Sandhu had reportedly raised concerns that Chief Electoral Officers, District Election Officers and Electoral Registration Officers were not always receiving complete access to ERONet. He argued that these statutory authorities must have the necessary access to perform their responsibilities under election law.
Joshi had also flagged what he described as the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and proposed an audit to establish that only authorised statutory officials could make changes to voter data.
These concerns are significant because ECINet was introduced as a technology backbone integrating numerous Election Commission applications and portals. The ECI has maintained that its digital systems operate with security controls designed to prevent unauthorised changes or manipulation.
ECI Says Cabinet Secretary Letter Was Administrative
In its latest clarification, the Election Commission said the communications to the Cabinet Secretary were administrative in nature and did not concern electoral policy decisions. The Commission’s statement came amid reports portraying the letters as evidence of a major institutional disagreement within the three-member poll panel.
The Commission has also stressed that differences of view and observations can arise during institutional deliberations and that the reported issues should not automatically be interpreted as a breakdown in the functioning of the constitutional body.
EC Orders Review of ECINet
The controversy has nevertheless prompted the ECI to order a review of ECINet.
According to reports, the review will involve an independent expert from an IIT or IIIT, alongside other members. The move follows the first full meeting of the three commissioners since reports emerged about disagreements concerning electoral-roll decisions and software controls.
The review could provide an independent assessment of how the platform manages access and electoral-roll data and whether the system adequately reflects the statutory responsibilities of election officials at different levels.
ECI Says SIR Decisions Were Unanimous
The Commission also sought to address wider reports of disagreement over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Following Saturday’s meeting, the ECI said key decisions relating to the SIR had received the unanimous approval of all three commissioners, rejecting suggestions that the exercise itself had been authorised without the agreement of Sandhu and Joshi.
The Commission also announced changes to the process for people who receive notices during the revision exercise. In most cases, such voters will not have to appear personally before Electoral Registration Officers unless their case requires an exceptional hearing.
Meetings to Have Clearer Documentation
The ECI has also decided that agendas for its meetings will be circulated in advance and that minutes will be issued after meetings. The measure is intended to improve the documentation of institutional decision-making amid the current controversy.
The developments come against the backdrop of wider public and political debate over SIR, voter-list revisions and the functioning of ECINet. The ECI’s latest steps appear aimed at clarifying the distinction between internal administrative concerns, technological safeguards and the policy decisions of the Commission.
As the independent ECINet review proceeds, its findings could provide further information about the platform’s access controls and the respective roles of central and state-level election officials.
