In need of an overhaul

1. At a Glance

• Topic: The Hindu editorial "In need of an overhaul" (28 Sept 2026) argues that the Election Commission of India (ECI) needs deep reform. It rests on two issues: (a) disagreement inside the three-member Commission, and (b) the effects of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [1].
• The SIR is a nationwide, phased check of electoral rolls. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visit every house. Its stated aim is to include every eligible citizen, keep out ineligible ones, and make additions and deletions transparent [2].
• UPSC relevance: It covers the independence and accountability of constitutional bodies (Art. 324), universal adult franchise, how the CEC and ECs are appointed under the 2023 Act, and how procedure affects voter rights [1][2][6].

2. Why in the News

• Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded 14 objections to decisions taken under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar [1].
• On Saturday (26 Sept 2026), the ECI issued a press note. It accepted only the administrative complaints [1]:
• agendas will be circulated before meetings and minutes after them;

• foreign trips by officers will need ECI approval.

• Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) will run a "special drive" to enrol anyone "whose name has got left out" [1].

• The editorial notes that Mr. Sandhu has had no answer on who authorised 16.1 lakh appeals in West Bengal to remove voters whom judicial officers had already included [1].
• More than 13 crore names have been removed from draft rolls through the SIR under Mr. Kumar [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Rationale of an intensive revision: include all eligible citizens, exclude ineligible voters, and make additions and deletions fully transparent [2].
• Milestones:
• Phase I: the ECI announced the start of the SIR in Bihar [3].
• Special Roll Observers were sent to major States undergoing the SIR [5].
• Phase II: 9 States + 3 UTs, October 2025 – April 2026 [2].
• Phase III: the remaining States and UTs, including NCT of Delhi, underway or proposed [2][4].

• Supreme Court: held the SIR to be within the ECI's statutory mandate under the RP Act, 1950, and consistent with Article 324 [2].

• Institutional side: the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 10 Aug 2023. It repealed the 1991 Act [6][7].

• Historical comparison drawn by the editorial: the Emergency and the ADM Jabalpur judgment are cited as the "dark periods" when Indian institutions failed [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Constitutional basis of ECI	Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of elections [2]
Statutory basis of roll revision	Representation of the People Act, 1950 [2]
Appointment law	CEC & Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Term of Office) Act, 2023; repealed the 1991 Act [6][7]
Bill introduced	Rajya Sabha, 10 Aug 2023 [6]
SIR method	House-to-house enumeration by BLOs → enumeration forms → draft roll → claims & objections → final roll after checks [2]
Field officials	BLO (enumeration); ERO (registration and roll decisions) [1][2]
Oversight	Special Roll Observers [5]
Phase II coverage	9 States + 3 UTs, Oct 2025 – Apr 2026 [2]
Present composition	CEC Gyanesh Kumar; ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [1]
Scale of deletions (editorial's claim)	>13 crore names removed from draft rolls [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Supreme Court upheld the SIR under the RP Act, 1950 and Art. 324 [2]. The live question is now how it is carried out, not whether the ECI has the power.
• The editorial says the SIR moves the burden of proving eligibility from the State to the elector [1]. This bears on universal adult franchise.
• Voters who were deleted must reapply as new applicants [1]. This raises questions of due process and the right to be heard before deletion.

Governance / Institutional

• The 14 recorded objections show a lack of collegial decision-making in a multi-member Commission [1].
• The ECI's fixes (agendas, minutes, travel approval) are procedural. The editorial calls them "damage control" [1].
• There is still no answer on who authorised the 16.1 lakh appeals [1]. This is an accountability gap.

Social

• The editorial says "lakhs of genuine electors" were struck off in West Bengal [1]. Wrongful deletion tends to fall hardest on migrant workers, the poor and people without documents (this is an analytical inference, not stated in the sources).

Administrative

• Doing the SIR in phases across States puts heavy pressure on BLOs and EROs [2][4].
• The ERO "special drive" is an admission that implementation went wrong [1].

Federal / Political

• The editorial says the SIR has "marauded from State to State" [1].
• Roll revisions close to State elections (such as West Bengal's) create friction between the Centre and States, and between parties and the ECI [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Oct 2025 – Apr 2026: SIR Phase II in 9 States + 3 UTs [2].
• 2026: SIR Phase III launched or proposed for the remaining States and UTs, including Delhi [4][2].
• 2026: The Supreme Court upheld the SIR's legality [2].
• Sept 2026: ECs Sandhu and Joshi's 14 objections became public. The ECI press note followed, along with the ERO special drive [1].
• Sept 2026: 16.1 lakh appeals in West Bengal to remove voters already included by judicial officers came into question [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SIR's enumeration is done house to house by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) [2].
• SIR stages in order: enumeration → draft roll → claims & objections → final roll [2].
• Phase II of the SIR covered 9 States and 3 UTs [2].
• Phase II ran from October 2025 to April 2026 [2].
• Phase III includes the NCT of Delhi [2].
• Phase I of the SIR began in Bihar [3].
• Special Roll Observers were deployed to watch the SIR [5].
• The Supreme Court held the SIR valid under the RP Act, 1950 (not the RP Act, 1951) [2].
• The ECI's constitutional mandate comes from Article 324 [2].
• The CEC & Other ECs Act, 2023 repealed the 1991 Act [6].
• The CEC–EC Bill, 2023 was introduced first in the Rajya Sabha (10 Aug 2023) [6].
• Current CEC: Gyanesh Kumar. ECs: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [1].
• ADM Jabalpur is the Emergency-era habeas corpus case the editorial cites as an institutional failure [1].

8. Why Two Commissioners Cannot Safely Say No to the Third

• The CEC and the other two ECs do not have the same job security
• The CEC can be removed only the way a Supreme Court judge is removed. That is a very hard process [6].
• An Election Commissioner can be removed only "upon the recommendation of the CEC" (Article 324(5)) [6].

• So the two members who dissented, Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Joshi, have less protection than the CEC they are dissenting against [1][6].

• Why this matters for the 14 objections

• A multi-member body works only if every member can disagree without fear.
• When one member's advice can end another member's job, outvoting him is not the same as being his equal.

• The Supreme Court noted that Parliament could give ECs the same protection as the CEC. That would need a constitutional amendment [6].

• Pay is now set by the government, not by Parliament

• Under the 2023 Act, the CEC and ECs get the same pay as the Cabinet Secretary, not a Supreme Court judge [6].
• The Cabinet Secretary's pay is fixed by the government on the advice of the Pay Commission. A judge's pay can be changed only by Parliament [6].
• So the body that referees elections now depends on the ruling side for its service terms.

9. How the Government Side Picks the Referee

• The selection committee has a built-in government majority
• Under the 2023 Act, the committee is: the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha [6].

• Two of the three are from the government. They can always outvote the Opposition [6].

• The Act moved away from what the Supreme Court had said

• In Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023), the Court had said the committee should be the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India [6].

• The 2023 Act replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister [6].

• Two gaps make it weaker still

• A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary suggests five names. But the selection committee can ignore the list and pick anyone else [6].

• If the Leader of Opposition post is vacant, for example just before an election, only ruling-party members are left on the committee [6].

• Link to the editorial

• When the way members are chosen is open to doubt, every contested decision, like the SIR deletions, is read as partisan. This is the core of the editorial's call for an "overhaul" [1].

10. Why Agendas and Minutes Do Not Answer the Real Complaint

• The ECI fixed the process, not the substance
• The press note accepted only the office complaints: agendas before meetings, minutes after, and approval for foreign travel [1].

• It said nothing on the main question: who authorised the 16.1 lakh appeals in West Bengal [1].

• Why these appeals are serious

• These appeals sought to remove voters whom judicial officers had already checked and kept on the roll [1].
• An appeal is meant to protect a voter from a wrong decision. Here it was used to reverse decisions that favoured the voter.

• If nobody signs for such a large action, nobody can be held accountable (answerable) for it.

• The ECI has no staff of its own to push back

• The ECI still has no independent secretariat (its own permanent office staff) [6].
• Officers who do its work come from governments, so the Commission's day-to-day machinery is not fully in its own hands.

11. Who Now Has to Prove They Are a Voter

• The burden of proof has moved to the citizen
• Burden of proof means: who must show evidence that something is true.

• The editorial says that under the SIR, the voter must prove eligibility. Earlier, the State had to show why a name should go [1].

• Deleted voters start again from zero

• A voter whose name is cut must apply again as a new applicant [1].

• So a person wrongly removed gets no quick way back. They face the same process as someone enrolling for the first time.

• The scale turns small error rates into huge numbers

• More than 13 crore names have been removed from draft rolls [1].

• Even if only a small share of these were genuine voters, that is lakhs of people. The editorial says "lakhs of genuine electors" were struck off in West Bengal alone [1].

• The ECI's own fix admits the problem

• The new ERO "special drive" is for people "whose name has got left out" [1].
• But it again asks the left-out voter to come forward. It does not reverse the burden.

12. The Strongest Case for the SIR — and Where It Falls Short

• The case for the SIR is real
• Rolls must be clean. An intensive revision aims to include every eligible citizen and remove ineligible names [2].
• The Supreme Court held the SIR legal under the RP Act, 1950 and Article 324 [2].
• There are safeguards on paper: a draft roll, a stage for claims and objections, and Special Roll Observers to watch the work [2][5].

• The dissent itself shows a check working. Two Commissioners put their objections on record [1].

• What is fair in this argument

• The ECI does have the power. The note should not suggest the SIR is illegal. The debate is only about how it is done [2][1].

• Where it falls short

• The claims-and-objections stage was used for 16.1 lakh appeals to remove already-cleared voters. The safeguard worked against voters, not for them [1].
• The Court approved the power, not the way it was used. Legality does not prove fairness in practice [2][1].
• A clean roll that drops genuine voters has not met the SIR's own first aim: to include every eligible citizen [2].

13. Reforms Already Recommended but Never Adopted

• Parliament should give ECs the same protection as the CEC
• The Law Commission's 255th Report recommended amending Article 324(5). ECs could then be removed only the way the CEC is [8].

• This would let a dissenting EC disagree without risk to his job.

• Parliament should create an independent secretariat for the ECI

• The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) recommended its own secretariat for the ECI, like the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and Supreme Court have [9].

• The Law Commission suggested a new Article 324(2A) for a permanent secretariat, on the model of Article 98 (Parliament's secretariats) [8].

• Parliament should revisit the selection committee

• It could return to the Anoop Baranwal model, with the Chief Justice of India in place of a Cabinet Minister [6].

• At the least, it could stop the committee from choosing names outside the Search Committee's list [6].

• The ECI should put dissent and decisions on record

• The ECI has now agreed to circulate minutes [1]. Publishing them, with any dissent, would let the public see who decided what.
• The ECI should name the authority behind the 16.1 lakh West Bengal appeals, as Mr. Sandhu has asked [1].

14. Anchors for Answers

• Data: More than 13 crore names removed from draft rolls through the SIR [1]; 16.1 lakh appeals in West Bengal to remove voters already included by judicial officers [1]; 14 objections recorded by two ECs [1]
• Report/Committee: Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990): independent ECI secretariat [9]; Law Commission 255th Report on Electoral Reforms: equal removal protection for ECs under Art. 324(5), separate secretariat under a new Art. 324(2A) [8]
• Law/Case: Article 324(5) (removal of ECs only on the CEC's recommendation) [6]; Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023) (PM + LoP + CJI selection panel) [6]; CEC & Other ECs Act, 2023 [7]; RP Act, 1950 [2]; ADM Jabalpur (institutional failure) [1]

15. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: "Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies"; "Salient features of the Representation of People's Act".
• GS-IV (secondary): institutional integrity, accountability and transparency in public institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The legitimacy of an electoral democracy rests as much on an inclusive electoral roll as on free polling." Examine this in the light of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. 2. Recent internal dissent within the Election Commission of India shows that collegial functioning is needed in multi-member constitutional bodies. Discuss, and suggest reforms. 3. Critically evaluate the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 as a safeguard of the ECI's independence.

16. Related Topics to Study Next

• RP Act, 1950 vs RP Act, 1951: the 1950 Act deals with electoral rolls, the 1951 Act with the conduct of elections.
• CEC & ECs Act, 2023 and Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023): the debate over how the selection committee is composed.
• Article 326 and universal adult franchise: the basis of the right to be enrolled.
• Delimitation: it is in the news alongside the SIR and together they shape representation.
• Emergency and the ADM Jabalpur case: the editorial's comparison of institutional failure.
• Linking Aadhaar with EPIC (voter ID): the debate over identity documents in roll verification.
• Model Code of Conduct and ECI powers: the wider picture of what the ECI can do.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RP Act 1950 vs 1951: electoral rolls come under the 1950 Act [2].
• Old vs new law: the 2023 Act repealed the 1991 Act; it did not amend it [6].
• Where the 2023 Bill started: it was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha [6].
• BLO vs ERO: the BLO does the enumeration; the ERO takes the registration and deletion decisions [1][2].
• Summary revision vs SIR: routine annual summary revisions are different from the SIR, which is a full house-to-house re-enumeration [2].
• What the Supreme Court decided: it upheld the legality of the SIR [2]. It did not approve how the SIR was carried out; that is what the editorial criticises [1].