Deep rot

1. At a Glance

• "Deep rot" is a Hindu editorial (24 Sept 2026) arguing that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is "thoroughly vitiated" and that CEC Gyanesh Kumar must resign. [1]
• The editorial builds on an Indian Express investigation. It found dissent inside the Election Commission of India (ECI), not only from civil society, the media and the Opposition. [1]
• Why it matters: the topic tests electoral integrity, the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), the ECI's collegiality as a multi-member body, and the limits of executive power over rules. [1]
• Sourcing caveat: the two searches returned no whitelisted Tier 1/2 pages. This note rests on the article excerpt only (Tier 4). Items marked (uncited) are background from general knowledge and should be verified.

2. Why in the News

• The Indian Express investigation found that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times between October 2025 and August 2026. Many decisions, they said, were taken without their knowledge. [1]
• In May 2026, Mr. Joshi warned that Form 6 (application for new electors) could not be altered without the government amending the rules. [1]
• In July 2026, Form 6 nonetheless carried questions on whether the applicant, parents or grandparents appeared in the "electoral roll of the last SIR". Mr. Sandhu called this "unauthorised and illegal". [1]
• The ECs flagged centralisation of the electoral roll database, sought an audit, and recorded that field officials lacked complete access to the ERONet portal. [1]
• West Bengal was hit hardest: about 60 lakh electors were flagged for software-generated "logical discrepancies". [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• The nationwide SIR was announced on 27 Oct 2025 by CEC Gyanesh Kumar. (uncited)
• The Bihar SIR came first, in mid-2025. (uncited)
• The Supreme Court reportedly upheld SIR's legitimacy in May 2026. (uncited; verify)
• The editorial's dated timeline of dissent runs Oct 2025 → Aug 2026. [1]
• Predecessor: routine summary and intensive revisions of rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. (uncited)

4. Core Static Facts

• Form 6: application for inclusion of a new elector. [1]
• ERONet: portal used by field officials for roll management. [1]
• ERO: the statutory authority on voters' eligibility. [1]
• Logical discrepancies: software-flagged mismatches, about 60 lakh in West Bengal. [1]
• Forms and rules: changing Form 6 requires amending the rules, per EC Joshi. [1]
• Legal base: Representation of the People Act, 1950 (roll preparation) and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. (uncited)
• Constitutional base: Article 324 (ECI superintendence of elections) and Article 326 (adult suffrage). (uncited)

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Altering a statutory form without amending the rules is alleged to be ultra vires. [1]
• Questions on ancestors' presence in the last SIR roll were called "unauthorised and illegal" by an EC. [1]
• The ERO is the statutory decision-maker, yet central-database changes reportedly overrode EROs. [1]

Ethical / Governance

• Two of the three members objected on record 14+ times, and many decisions were reportedly taken without their knowledge. This signals a collegiality deficit. [1]
• The ECs sought an audit of the centralised database. [1]
• The editorial calls for the CEC's resignation on accountability grounds. [1]

Administrative

• Field officials had incomplete ERONet access. [1]
• Local officials complained that changes were made at the central level. [1]

Technological

• Software-generated "logical discrepancies" flagged about 60 lakh West Bengal electors, and the article says many flags were dubious. [1]
• Algorithmic flagging without ERO-level verification raises due-process concerns.

Social

• Wrongful flagging risks disenfranchising eligible citizens. This is an inference from the article's framing of "dubious" flags. [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• Oct 2025 – Aug 2026: at least 14 recorded objections by ECs Sandhu and Joshi. [1]
• May 2026: EC Joshi warns Form 6 cannot be altered without a rules amendment. [1]
• July 2026: Form 6 carries the "last SIR roll" questions. [1]
• Sept 2026: Indian Express investigation, followed by The Hindu editorial on 24 Sept. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Form 6 is the application for new electors. [1]
• The ERO is the statutory authority on voters' eligibility. [1]
• ERONet is the ECI portal for roll management. [1]
• About 60 lakh West Bengal electors were flagged for "logical discrepancies". [1]
• Article 324 vests superintendence of elections in the ECI. (uncited)
• Article 326 guarantees adult suffrage. (uncited)
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs preparation of electoral rolls. (uncited)
• The CEC and ECs are appointed under the 2023 Act, with a selection committee that excludes the CJI. (uncited)
• A CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge (Art. 324(5)); ECs only on the CEC's recommendation. (uncited)

8. Two of Three Members Said No, and the Law Says the Majority Wins

• The Election Commission is not a one-man office. The 2023 Act says so in writing.
• Section 10 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 says all business shall "as far as possible" be done unanimously (everyone agreeing) [3].
• If they differ, the matter "shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority" [3].

• So on a three-member body, two members outrank one. Always.

• This turns the dissent story from bad manners into a possible breach of law.

• Two of the three members objected, and the decisions still went ahead [1].

• On a straight count, two beats one. The decision should have gone the other way.

• The real break is not the vote. It is that no vote ever happened.

• The ECs recorded that many decisions were taken without their knowledge [1].
• A majority rule only works if the matter is placed before all three members first.

• If files never reach the other two, Section 10 cannot switch on. The rule is not broken openly; it is simply bypassed [3].

• Be fair about what we do not know. The editorial does not say a formal vote was held and then ignored. It says objections were recorded and overridden [1]. That is why the demand is for an audit and an inquiry, not a court verdict already delivered.

9. How a Change in One Form Can Quietly Remove a Real Voter

• Follow the chain, one step at a time. This is the part most aspirants skip.
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 fix what Form 6 (the form for a new voter) may ask.
• Change the question on the form, and you have in effect changed the rule — without Parliament or the government amending anything. That was EC Joshi's warning in May 2026 [1].

• A form question is not a small thing. It decides what proof a citizen must produce.

• The new question asks for something many poor citizens cannot produce.

• Form 6 began asking whether the applicant, the parents or the grandparents were in the roll of the last SIR [1].
• A landless labourer, a migrant, or a person whose family never had stable papers cannot answer this.

• So the duty shifts: earlier the state had to show you are not eligible; now you must show your grandparents were on a list.

• The software then does what only the ERO is allowed to do.

• Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO (the officer who decides who goes on the roll) is the person who must hear you and decide.
• In West Bengal about 60 lakh voters were flagged by software for "logical discrepancies" [1].
• Field officers did not have full ERONet access, so the officer who must decide could not even see the file properly [1].
• A flag raised centrally, which the local officer cannot open and check, is a decision without a hearing.

10. The Two Dissenters Can Be Removed by the Man They Are Dissenting Against

• The removal rules are not equal, and that inequality shapes this whole fight.
• The CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge — that means a motion in Parliament with a special majority [2].

• An Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC [2].

• Put those two lines next to each other and the problem is plain.

• The two officers objecting are the two who can be removed on the word of the officer they are objecting to.
• Job security is what lets a member say no. Here, only one of the three has it.

• This is why the ECs' objections went into file notings rather than into public statements [1].

• What should change, and who must do it.

• Parliament should give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC. PRS notes the 2023 Act kept the old gap and did not create parity between the two posts [2].
• Without that, "collegiality" in the ECI is a request, not a right.

11. The 2023 Appointment Law Is the Root the Editorial Does Not Dig Up

• In 2023 the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal said the selection committee for the CEC and ECs must include the Chief Justice of India [2].
• Parliament then passed a law that replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister.
• The committee is now the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha [2].

• Two of the three are from the government of the day. So the government picks the people who umpire its own elections [2].

• Two smaller design choices push the same way.

• Salary is tied to the Cabinet Secretary, whose pay the government fixes — not to a Supreme Court judge, whose pay Parliament fixes [2].

• Eligibility is limited to persons who have been Secretary-rank officers, which leaves out people with quasi-judicial experience [2].

• Two fixes with named owners.

• Parliament should restore a non-government voice on the selection committee, as the Supreme Court directed in Anoop Baranwal (2023) [2].
• The ECI should be given its own independent secretariat. PRS records that this long-standing recommendation was left out of the 2023 Act [2]. Today ECI staff are drawn from the same government the Commission must referee.

12. The Strongest Argument for the Commission, and Where It Runs Out

• State the other side honestly first. It is not weak.
• Cleaning the electoral roll is a legal duty, not a favour. Dead voters, shifted voters and duplicate entries are a real problem, and roll revision under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 exists exactly for this.
• Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence of elections — wide power to run the process as it judges fit.
• An internal disagreement among three members is normal in any board. Recorded dissent is a sign the system is working, not collapsing.

• The editorial itself is an opinion piece built on a newspaper investigation, not a court finding [1].

• Where the defence runs out.

• Article 324 gives power over elections, but the roll is governed by a statute and rules. Wide power does not include power to skip the rules that Parliament wrote. That was the ECs' own objection [1].
• Dissent is healthy only if it is heard. The complaint here is that decisions were taken without the other members even knowing [1].

• Cleaning a roll and shrinking a roll look the same from outside. The only thing separating them is the ERO's verification — which is the step field officers said they could not fully perform [1].

• The honest exam position: the goal of roll revision is sound; the objection is to the method, the skipped rule change, and the missing hearing. Write it that way and you will not be marked one-sided.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: About 60 lakh West Bengal electors flagged by software for "logical discrepancies" during SIR [1]
• Data: At least 14 recorded objections by two of the ECI's three members, October 2025 – August 2026 [1]
• Law: Section 10, CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 — business to be unanimous as far as possible, otherwise decided by the majority [3]
• Law: Article 324(5) — CEC removable only like a Supreme Court judge; an EC only on the CEC's recommendation [2]
• Case: Anoop Baranwal (2023) — Supreme Court directed a selection committee including the CJI; the 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister [2]
• Law: Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — roll preparation and the statutory forms, including Form 6 [1]
• Reform proposal: An independent ECI secretariat, a long-standing recommendation not taken up in the 2023 Act [2]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Constitutional bodies; Representation of the People Act; electoral reforms; accountability of institutions.
• GS-IV: Integrity and impartiality in public institutions.
• Plausible questions:
• Critically examine the legal basis and procedural safeguards of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
• Collegiality in the Election Commission is essential to its independence. Discuss with reference to recent controversies.
• Does centralising electoral roll databases undermine the statutory role of EROs?

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 and ECI independence: the constitutional basis for its powers.
• CEC/EC appointment law (2023): selection committee composition.
• Representation of the People Acts, 1950/1951: statutory roll and election framework.
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: the rules governing forms such as Form 6.
• Removal of the CEC and impeachment motions: the procedure and its threshold.
• Citizenship and voter eligibility (Art. 326): who may be enrolled.
• Data governance and algorithmic decision-making: due process for automated flags.
• Delimitation: it appears alongside SIR among the site's current topics. [1]

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing Form 6 (new electors) with other forms, such as Form 7 for deletion and Form 8 for corrections. (uncited)
• Treating the editorial's allegations as adjudicated findings. They come from an Indian Express investigation and an opinion piece. [1]
• Mixing up the ERO (statutory authority) with the central ECI database or software. [1]
• Assuming the CEC can be removed as easily as an EC. The removal procedure differs. (uncited)
• Confusing SIR with routine Special Summary Revision. (uncited)