New Delhi: In the last 10 months, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – two of the three Election Commissioners of the Election Commission of India (ECI) – formally objected for as many as 14 times to various aspects of the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, an exclusive investigation by Ritika Chopra for Indian Express has found.Apart from Sandhu and Joshi, the ECI is headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, whose actions as the chief of the poll-body has drawn severe criticism by the opposition and rights groups.The Indian Express report published on Wednesday (September 23) added that in some instances, the Election Commissioners asked questions to the very institution they head, seemingly unaware about crucial information related to the SIR process which has left millions of citizens out of the electoral roll.For instance, in August, Sandhu wrote to ECI officials over the 16.10 lakh appeals which were filed against voters in West Bengal who were included by judicial officers. The appeals sought their deletion from electoral rolls.“Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?” wrote Sandhu to ECI officials, also asking, “Who actually filed these appeals on behalf of ECI?” reported Indian Express.Sandhu recorded that neither he nor Joshi nor the current Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal had been informed about the basis or process of filing the appeals.Following the revelations, opposition parties on Wednesday demanded immediate impeachment proceedings against CEC Kumar. The revelation is crucial as the SIR process in West Bengal took away the voting rights of more than 22 lakh voters in the state.The ECI on September 18 told the Supreme Court that 22.21 lakh electors whose names were deleted in Bengal have filed appeals seeking their inclusion in the electoral rolls.The Wire has extensively reported about the far-reaching impact of the voter deletions in West Bengal, where in the 2026 assembly elections, the winning margin in 49 seats was less than the SIR removals. Read part one of The Wire’s special series on West Bengal SIR here, part two, here, part three, here and part four, here.Indian Express also reported on Wednesday that in May this year, Joshi had warned on file that Form 6 could not be changed in a manner to make it mandatory for new voters to answer their parents/ grandparents “exist” in the “electoral roll of last SIR.”‘Form 6 changes unauthorised and illegal’Joshi said that the Form 6 cannot be changed without the government amending the rules, to which Sandhu had agreed. However, the change was made anyway.Sandhu put on record on August 13 that it was “unauthorised and illegal” and “must be removed immediately”. However, the question continues to be a part of Form 6, reported Indian Express.In May, Joshi also red-flagged that “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and proposed an audit to certify that “no one, except the concerned statutory authorities, has credentials to make any change in the (voter) database.”Sandhu reiterated this in August. He recorded that state-level election officials were reporting they “don’t have proper and complete access” to the ERONet portal, the digital system through which they maintain the electoral roll.Joshi flagged that the ECI’s director general of IT Seema Khanna “doesn’t have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate, as given by law, to the statutory authorities,” reported Indian Express.Two Election Commissioners even complained to cabinet secretaryAll such objections were also copied to CEC Kumar and some were also sent to deputy election commissioners under their watch. In fact, very recently, in a radical departure from the norm, Joshi and Sandhu also wrote separately to the cabinet secretary complaining about changes in work allocation that, in effect, removed a layer of oversight of the IT backbone for the electoral rolls. They made it clear that these changes had been done without their knowledge and they struck them down, said the Indian Express report.Moreover, on April 16, Sandhu told senior officers of the ECI that “many communications go out in the name of the ECI but they do not have the approval of the Commission”, and that from then on every communication must have it, “as per the provisions of 2023 Act”.Eight days later, Joshi told the same officers that “several communications are disseminated in the name of the ECI without the requisite approval of ‘the Commission’,” and that all future communications must have that approval, “in accordance with the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution” and the Act.ECI ducks, talks of ‘suggestions’ but silent on objections raised by ECsThe ECI and the two Election Commissioners didn’t respond either to questions or phone calls of Indian Express.Following the publication of the report on Wednesday, the ECI issued a press note signed by deputy director P. Pawan, wherein the poll body said that “any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes.”“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives give only one part of the picture. In recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past one year,” said the ECI’s press note.However, the poll watchdog didn’t address the specific contents of the IE report, especially the objections raised by the two Election Commissioners, for which they even had to approach the cabinet secretary. The information in the IE report cannot be construed as suggestions, especially in instances wherein the two Election Commissioners themselves have said that several communications are disseminated in the name of the ECI without the requisite approval of the Commission.Differences within ECI ‘very serious’, says former CECFollowing the investigation was published in the Indian Express, political scientist Suhas Palshikar wrote on X, “If two of the three ECs have dissented, all such orders must be treated as infructuous and a national crisis must be recognized for what it is– subversion of basic principles of decision making and consequent violation of citizens’ right to vote and right to fair elections.”Advocated Prashant Bhushan, who represents petitioners questioning the SIR process, said the Supreme Court should take suo motu cognisance of the issue.Following the IE report, former CEC O.P. Rawat told Press Trust of India that changes to the statutory voter registration Form 6 are “absolutely wrong and illegal” and also said that the kind of differences that have emerged within the ECI are “very serious.”The latest revelations further highlight the opaque nature of the SIR process, which has been slammed by the opposition, who has alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is using SIR as a tool to disenfranchise lakhs of voters, particularly from minority and marginalised communities.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.