The Election Commission announced on Saturday that all three commissioners have unanimously approved a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, set to begin on June 24, 2025. This decision follows a full-house meeting held that afternoon and comes after the Supreme Court upheld the order. The announcement clarifies recent media reports indicating that two election commissioners had expressed objections to certain decisions made in the commission’s name.
Today’s statement clarifies this matter unequivocally. The time will come, we will catch you. Earlier reporting noted: The EC release also announced a set of decisions on the SIR and on the commission’s internal functioning, and laid out its position on a letter written to the Cabinet Secretary, reportedly by Sandhu and Joshi as per The Indian Express of September 23.
The ruling BJP, facing allegations of voter list manipulation, immediately pointed to this press statement and said the Congress-led Opposition’s charges now stand deflated. After the latest EC press note sought to address the report point by point, BJP MP Sambit Patra said in Bhubaneswar, “It had been alleged that there was a lack of consensus within the Election Commission, implying the three commissioners were not united, and that the matter had escalated to the point where the Cabinet Secretary had to intervene… The EC note said a letter written reportedly by Joshi and Sandhu to the Cabinet Secretary “was not related to any policy matter of the Commission or IT division but related to the working of an officer on deputation to ECI”. It said the officer’s work redistribution orders “were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners”. The Congress has said it no longer trusts a commission led by Gyanesh Kumar and wants him removed. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi had said at a press conference, “This is treason… Earlier reporting noted: Another issue concerned a letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary over the redistribution of work “involving an officer on deputation to the EC”. The commission said the letter was not related to any policy matter of the EC or its IT division, but to the functioning of the officer. It said the work redistribution orders objected to were not implemented after directions from the two commissioners, and that oversight of the IT division by a Deputy Election Commissioner was never withdrawn.
