A plain-language summary of events. For the editor’s analysis, see India’s Election Commission: what the record shows, and what it doesn’t.
Background: what the “Special Intensive Revision” is
India’s Election Commission runs national and state elections. It is a three-member body: a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. By law, the three hold equal rank.
Voter lists are normally updated every year. A “Special Intensive Revision” goes further. It rebuilds the voter list largely from scratch, and every voter must show they are eligible. Names that cannot be verified are removed. A 1950 election law allows the Commission to order such a revision at any time. The last one was done about 20 years ago.
2023: Who picks the commissioners changes
In 2023, India’s Supreme Court ruled that until Parliament passed a law, the commissioners should be chosen by a three-person panel: the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice.
Later that year, Parliament passed a law that took the Chief Justice off the panel and added a cabinet minister chosen by the Prime Minister. The government now holds two of the three votes. That was legal, since Parliament has the power to write the rule. But critics say it weakens the Commission’s independence, and the law is being challenged in the Supreme Court.
The same law sets a key rule. When the three commissioners disagree, the majority decides. All three current commissioners were appointed under this system. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar heads the body. The other two are Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
June 2025: The revision begins
The Commission ordered a Special Intensive Revision in the state of Bihar on June 24, 2025. It later expanded to other states.
Early 2026: West Bengal loses about 9 million voters
The revision in West Bengal ran right up to its state election. By early April, about 9.1 million names had been removed, nearly 12% of all voters. Some removals were routine, such as people who had died or moved. But about 2.7 million people were removed after officials reviewed them and judged them ineligible.
People who were removed could appeal to special panels of retired judges. The panels were set up in March and moved very slowly. Before the first day of voting, only 136 people had been put back on the list. Voting took place on April 23 and April 29. Results came out on May 4. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, won 207 of 294 seats. That ended 15 years of rule by Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress party.
By August 7, about 3.8 million appeals had been filed, some seeking to remove names rather than restore them, and only about 2% had been decided. In 91% of the decided cases, the panels put the voter’s name back on the list. By then, those voters had already missed the election.
May 2026: Objections inside the Commission, then a court ruling
The voter registration form, called Form 6, is fixed by official government regulations. Changing it requires formally amending those regulations. During the revision, a new question was added to the online form. It asked whether the applicant, a parent, or a grandparent appeared on the list from the last revision. Applicants could not move forward without answering it.
On May 16, Commissioner Joshi reportedly objected in writing. He said the form could not be changed this way without amending the regulations. Commissioner Sandhu reportedly agreed on May 19. In August, Sandhu reportedly wrote that the change was “unauthorised and illegal” and should be removed at once.
On May 27, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission had the legal power to carry out the revision. A former Supreme Court judge alleges that the Commission did not tell the court about the commissioners’ objections while the case was pending.
September 23: The Indian Express investigation
The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months, four times on a single day. The two commissioners said decisions and orders were issued in the Commission’s name without their knowledge. Their objections reportedly covered:
- the changes to the registration form
- how names were removed and restored
- how appeals were handled
- an alleged move to centralize control of the national voter database
State election officials reportedly complained that they lacked full access to the voter database. Joshi reportedly wrote that the Commission’s head of information technology, Seema Khanna, had no legal authority to restrict those officials’ access. The two commissioners also reportedly wrote to India’s Cabinet Secretary, the country’s top civil servant.
The Commission denied any split. It said every decision was unanimous and signed by all three members.
September 26: The Commission backs down in part
The three commissioners met and issued a joint note. It said the old registration form would be used whenever no special revision is under way. It also promised that future meetings would have agendas circulated in advance and published minutes. It said the letter to the Cabinet Secretary concerned one officer’s conduct, not policy.
The note also claimed the Supreme Court had approved the new question on the form. It did not mention the commissioners’ objections.
October: Judges take sides
A sitting Supreme Court justice and several retired ones have publicly warned that voters are losing their rights. One former Supreme Court judge has said the Commission allegedly misled the court and that the May ruling should be withdrawn. On the other side, 42 retired judges signed an open letter defending the Commission and calling the attacks a political campaign without evidence. A former Chief Justice said judges should not comment on cases still before the courts.
The Supreme Court has now said it never approved any change to the registration form, and it has asked the Commission for records showing who made the change. The May ruling still stands. The opposition is demanding Kumar’s removal. The Court will hear the challenges on October 27.
— John Laxmi
