Deep rot: On the Election Commission of India’s functioning during its SIR

The investigation by The Indian Express into the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) functioning during its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows that the disquiet over what transpired under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s watch is not limited to civil society, the media and the Opposition. It ran through the ECI itself, as Election Commissioners (EC) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times between October 2025 and August 2026 to decisions, many of which, they said, were taken without their knowledge. Their dissent mirrors what many have long said about the SIR. In May, Mr. Joshi had warned that Form 6, the application for new electors, could not be altered without the government amending the rules. Yet, in July, the form contained questions on whether the applicants or their parents or grandparents figured in the “electoral roll of the last SIR”, which Mr. Sandhu called “unauthorised and illegal”. The ECs also flagged the centralisation of the electoral roll database, sought an audit, and recorded that field officials lacked complete access to the ERONet portal. This mirrors what local election officials had complained of: that many of the changes in the rolls were done at the central database level overriding Electoral Registration Officers, the statutory authority on voters’ eligibility.

The consequences of the anomalies in the ECI’s decision-making and its functioning were the deepest in West Bengal. About 60 lakh electors were flagged for software-generated “logical discrepancies” — many were dubious — and 27 lakh names were deleted. Of the 38 lakh appeals pending before tribunals, 16.1 lakh were by those seeking to remove voters whom judicial officers had included; Mr. Sandhu’s question of who authorised filing them on the ECI’s behalf remains unanswered. Meanwhile, over nine in 10 appeals against deletion decided so far have restored the electors, which suggests that the exercise struck off lakhs of genuine voters before the West Bengal elections. The Hindu’s analysis also revealed that 24 of the 70 seats in Delhi now have fewer electors in draft rolls than those who actually voted just a year and a half ago. On Wednesday, Justice Dipankar Datta, as part of a two-judge Bench, held in his opinion that the 2023 Act’s replacement of the CJI, whom the Anoop Baranwal judgment had placed on the selection panel, with a Union Minister, fails the “perception test”. It was this panel that chose Mr. Kumar as CEC. Regrettably, the Supreme Court had earlier upheld the SIR without adequately confronting its design, which deletes electors before verification and places the burden of proving eligibility on the citizen rather than the state, thereby defeating the constitutional guarantee of universal adult franchise. Mr. Kumar must resign and the Court must halt further deletions until the roll database is audited. Anything less will be a defeat for India’s democracy.

Overall Analysis

The editorial is a strong institutional critique of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its functioning during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Its central concern is not merely the deletion or addition of voters, but the credibility, transparency and internal functioning of a constitutional institution responsible for conducting elections.

The opening immediately establishes a critical tone through the phrase “deep rot”. Here, rot is metaphorical: it suggests that the problem is not superficial but has allegedly penetrated the institution’s functioning. The author builds the argument around the Indian Express investigation, particularly the fact that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded objections multiple times. This is important rhetorically because the criticism is presented as coming not only from outside the ECI but also from within it. The editorial uses this internal disagreement to strengthen its concern about institutional functioning.

The paragraph then moves from internal dissent to procedural concerns. The examples of changes to Form 6, centralisation of the electoral-roll database and difficulties with the ERONet portal are used to illustrate what the author sees as a weakening of established procedures. The language becomes particularly forceful with expressions such as “unauthorised and illegal” and “overriding Electoral Registration Officers”. These expressions create a contrast between the statutory role of local election officials and the alleged centralisation of decision-making.

The second paragraph intensifies the argument by moving from process to consequences. West Bengal becomes the principal example. The author cites large numbers of voters flagged for “logical discrepancies”, deletions and appeals, and then uses the high proportion of successful appeals against deletion to question the reliability of the exercise. The phrase “struck off lakhs of genuine voters” is particularly powerful because struck off means removed from an official list. The author is suggesting that the process may have affected legitimate voters before their eligibility was properly established.

The editorial then widens the discussion beyond West Bengal by referring to Delhi and to a Supreme Court opinion concerning the composition of the selection panel for the Chief Election Commissioner. This technique gives the editorial a cumulative structure: internal ECI disagreements → procedural concerns → consequences for voters → questions about institutional independence.

A particularly important linguistic feature is the author’s use of loaded but metaphorical expressions. “Thoroughly vitiated”, “deep rot”, “defeating the constitutional guarantee” and “Anything less will be a defeat for India’s democracy” are much stronger than neutral news-reporting language. They reveal that this is an opinion/editorial piece rather than a purely factual report.

The editorial also uses legal and constitutional vocabulary to give its argument a formal framework. Terms such as “statutory authority”, “constitutional guarantee”, “universal adult franchise”, “perception test” and “audit” make the argument suitable for institutional and constitutional analysis.

Importantly, some claims in the editorial are attributed to investigations, Election Commissioners, court proceedings or the author’s interpretation, rather than being independently established facts. For example, the claim that deletions affected genuine voters is presented as an inference from the restoration rate. The Supreme Court has separately scrutinised aspects of the SIR process; on September 22, 2026, it questioned the apparently “mechanical” issuance of notices in Delhi and asked the ECI to examine whether additional filters were necessary.

From a language-learning perspective, this is a useful example of editorial writing that combines evidence with evaluative language. The writer begins with reported developments, interprets their significance, and finally arrives at a strongly worded institutional conclusion.

Important Vocabulary — 5

1. Disquiet – a feeling of anxiety, uneasiness or concern.
2. Anomaly – something unusual or irregular that does not fit the expected pattern.
3. Conflate – to combine two different things or ideas as though they were the same.
4. Vitiated – spoiled, weakened or made legally/administratively defective.
5. Franchise – the right to vote in an election; universal adult franchise means the right of all eligible adult citizens to vote.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the controversy surrounding the SIR raises serious questions about transparency, internal accountability, electoral-roll management and the institutional credibility of the ECI. Its final demand — that the CEC resign and further deletions be halted until the database is audited — represents the editorial’s own strongly stated position.