New Delhi- Communist Party of India (Marxist) Rajya Sabha MP and leader of the CPI(M) group in the Upper House, Dr John Brittas, has written to President Droupadi Murmu seeking her “urgent constitutional intervention” over the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the protection of citizens' right to vote.
In his letter dated September 23, Brittas said the developments surrounding the Election Commission and the SIR had gone beyond an ordinary political or administrative controversy and had raised questions about the integrity of electoral rolls, the functioning of a constitutional institution and the citizen's right to participate in representative democracy.
The letter comes on the day The Indian Express published an investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months to decisions and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission. According to the report, the objections concerned voter registration and deletion, changes to statutory Form 6, centralised control of electoral-roll databases, appeals against orders restoring voters and problems with software used to implement decisions by electoral authorities.
The Election Commission, however, has rejected the suggestion of an internal breakdown, saying that written objections, observations and technical suggestions by individual Election Commissioners are part of its normal functioning and that decisions relating to the SIR and other matters were taken unanimously by the full Commission.
Brittas referred specifically to the Indian Express investigation and said the reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi were “particularly grave” because they concerned the functioning of the country's constitutional election authority.
According to the investigation cited by Brittas, the two Election Commissioners raised objections at least 14 times during the previous 10 months, including objections to decisions and communications allegedly undertaken in the name of the Commission without their knowledge or approval.
The issues reportedly flagged by them include the alteration of Form 6, centralised control over the electoral-roll database, registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, appeals filed by the Election Commission against orders restoring voters during the SIR process, software-related difficulties in Goa and questions concerning the custody and security of the electoral roll database.
The Indian Express reported that the objections were made by two of the three members of the Commission Sandhu and Joshi and that four objections were recorded on a single day.
Brittas said these developments assumed greater significance because the SIR exercise has resulted in more than 13 crore names being struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories so far. The Indian Express reported that the SIR, which began in Bihar in June 2025, had resulted in more than 13 crore names being removed from draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories.
The scale of the exercise, Brittas argued, made questions about the legality, transparency and safeguards surrounding the revision process particularly important.
A major issue concerns Form 6, the statutory form used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.
The Indian Express reported that a new declaration was added to Form 6 through the ECINet portal, asking applicants whether their own name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR.
According to the report, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi recorded an objection on May 16, stating that Form 6 and Form 8 were statutory forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and therefore could not be altered without amendment of the Rules. Sandhu subsequently concurred with Joshi's position.
Sandhu later wrote on August 13 that the changes to Form 6 remained on the portal despite the views recorded by both Commissioners and described the changes as “unauthorised/illegal”, calling for their immediate removal.
Brittas pointed out that he himself had raised concerns over the alteration of Form 6 in a letter to the Election Commission dated July 13, 2020.
In his communication to the President, he argued that the reported objections were significant because Form 6 is not merely an administrative document but a statutory form prescribed under the electoral rules.
The Indian Express investigation also noted that changes made to Form 6 in 2022 following Parliament's amendment allowing the collection of Aadhaar numbers were accompanied by corresponding changes to the Registration of Electors Rules through a notification of the Law Ministry's Legislative Department.
The Goa episode is among the examples cited in the wider controversy.
According to the Indian Express investigation, 97 voters in Goa had appeared before Electoral Registration Officers, produced documents and were found eligible. However, the software allegedly did not allow the EROs' decisions to be recorded, leaving the voters out of the final electoral roll.
The report said the issue raised questions about whether a technological system administered from a central location could effectively override decisions taken by statutory authorities at the ground level.
Brittas has therefore sought safeguards to ensure that technology used in electoral administration does not become a barrier to the implementation of lawful decisions.
Another concern highlighted by Brittas relates to the control and accessibility of the electoral-roll database.
The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had questioned what they described as the gradual centralisation of electoral-roll systems and whether statutory officials at the state and constituency levels were retaining adequate access to the system.
The report referred to ERONet and its successor ECINet, the digital systems used for managing electoral rolls. According to the investigation, the two Commissioners raised concerns that access to the database was increasingly being concentrated at the Commission's headquarters in Delhi.
Brittas has asked the President for clarity over “control and accessibility” of the electoral-roll database and the legal authority governing such arrangements.
The issue assumes importance because Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are statutory authorities responsible for electoral rolls at the constituency level. The Indian Express reported a case in Goa in which 97 voters were found eligible by local electoral authorities but the software allegedly did not permit the officials to record their decisions in the system.
Brittas said that instances where technology allegedly prevents a statutory authority from implementing a lawful decision require particular scrutiny.
The letter also refers to the filing of appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process in West Bengal.
The Indian Express investigation reported that more than 16 lakh appeals were filed in West Bengal against voters whom judicial officers had restored, while questions were raised about the circumstances in which the appeals were filed and the authority under which they were initiated.
Brittas has asked for clarity over the authorisation of such appeals and the institutional decision-making process behind them.
His letter calls for complete transparency regarding who authorised appeals by the Election Commission seeking deletion of voters whose names had previously been restored through the prescribed process.
Brittas has also raised a constitutional question concerning how the Election Commission, as a multi-member body under Article 324 of the Constitution, is expected to conduct its business.
He referred to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the business of the Commission should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and that disagreements are to be decided according to the majority view.
The Act also provides for the Commission's procedure and division of work to be settled by unanimous decision, as applicable.
Brittas argued that if the reported objections are borne out by official records, questions would arise as to whether the institutional safeguards intended to ensure collective functioning of the multi-member constitutional body were being respected in practice.
The ECI has disputed the suggestion that the reported objections establish a breakdown in the functioning of the Commission, maintaining that its decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously.
The Supreme Court on September 22 questioned the Election Commission over the manner in which notices were being issued to voters classified under categories including “logical discrepancies” and “unmapped”. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, sought the ECI's response.
The court observed that notices appeared to be going out “almost mechanically” and asked the Commission to examine whether additional filters were required before issuing them.
The proceedings concern more than 33 lakh electors in Delhi who were identified for notices under the two categories. According to details cited in the litigation, 33,12,919 electors were identified for notices- 13,79,785 under “no mapping” and 19,33,134 under “logical discrepancies”.
The petitioners have argued that voters were not being given adequate information about the precise discrepancy in their records or the criteria used to classify them as having a “logical discrepancy”. They have sought disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines governing the classification.
The draft Delhi electoral roll had also excluded around 47 lakh names under categories including absent, shifted, dead or duplicate electors, according to the petitioners' submissions reported during the proceedings.
Brittas has referred to his own family in the letter, saying that members of his family who are registered electors in New Delhi have also received SIR notices based on alleged name discrepancies.
He said he was not raising this as a personal grievance but as an illustration of a wider issue concerning established electors being placed under suspicion by what he described as an opaque technological or administrative process.
The concern, he said, was that voters whose names already exist on the electoral roll could be required to establish an entitlement that has previously been recognised.
In his letter, Brittas has asked President Murmu to ensure that immediate safeguards are put in place against the irreversible exclusion of eligible voters. He has also called for preservation of the complete electronic and administrative audit trail relating to the SIR. Such records, he said, should remain available for possible judicial and parliamentary scrutiny. His request covers the entire chain of decision-making including alterations to statutory forms, control and access to voter databases, authorisation of appeals seeking deletion of voters and instances where software allegedly prevented electoral authorities from implementing decisions concerning eligible voters.
Brittas also brought the pending parliamentary proceedings seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to the President's attention. He said a fresh notice was submitted in the Rajya Sabha on April 24, 2026, signed by 73 Members of Parliament.
The notice invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, read with Article 124(4), Section 11(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It contained nine grounds described by its sponsors as constituting “proved misbehaviour”.
The April notice followed earlier motions submitted in March in both Houses seeking Kumar's removal. The fresh Rajya Sabha notice was signed by 73 MPs, exceeding the 50-member threshold required for a removal motion in the Upper House under the applicable procedure.
According to reports on the April notice, the charges included allegations concerning what opposition parties described as partisan asymmetry in enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, among other grounds. Those are allegations contained in the parliamentary notice and are not established findings against the CEC.
Brittas has asked President Murmu to ensure that the constitutional process contemplated under Article 324(5) is allowed to proceed without obstruction and that the government provides the cooperation necessary for Parliament to discharge what he described as its constitutional responsibility.
The CPI(M) MP's final request concerns the Union government's position in the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the SIR.
Brittas has asked President Murmu to take cognisance of what he describes as the constitutional issues arising from the revision exercise and, within the powers and responsibilities of the presidential office, ensure that the Union's position before the Supreme Court reflects the need to protect the franchise and the rule of law.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.
'The Mooknayak' practices democratic journalism. It is a media platform committed to the Constitution, democracy, and social justice. If you also want 'The Mooknayak' to always raise the voices of the marginalized and show the pain of the voiceless, please subscribe.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE US