Can the ECI Untie Knots of Its Own Making? Lavasa on SIR

The Lift Line

“Glory lies not in never falling but rising every time you fall.” (Oliver Goldsmith, quoted by the author)

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

This column in The Indian Express of 7 October 2026 is by Ashok Lavasa, a former Election Commissioner of India, which gives it unusual weight: he writes as one who has sat at the Commission’s table. He argues that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has tied itself in “knots of its own making” over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and that only transparency can untie them.

The story has run through our pages: the two Election Commissioners’ objections in a 24 September editorial, the legal basis of the SIR as argued by P.D.T. Achary in a 5 October editorial, and the forms used in the revision in the 4 October roundup. This column adds an insider’s view of collective functioning and the Form 6 dispute.

GS Paper 2: Appointment to various constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies; salient features of the Representation of the People Act. GS Paper 4: Accountability, transparency and probity in public institutions.

Background and Context

The Commission and its law

Background: the dispute, in sequence

The Analysis

1. Friendless, and by its own effort. Lavasa opens with a lament. An organisation that “endeared itself by its friendly approach” now finds itself friendless. Its only friend, the ruling party, “pushes it further into a corner each time it comes to its defence”. Criticism comes from almost every quarter: people, civil society, retired civil servants, former judges, practising lawyers, political parties, newspapers’ editorials and YouTubers.

2. The courts are closing in. High courts have questioned some ECI decisions; serving judges have spoken against mass disenfranchisement; former ECs and CECs have questioned its conduct; and petitions seeking the suspension of the CEC have been admitted by the Supreme Court, the author writes. Then, on 5 October, the CJI reportedly observed that no modified Form 6 had been approved by the Court.

3. Three answers, each worse than the last. The ECI’s responses to the Indian Express report, Lavasa says, “added to its miseries”:

4. What para 152 really says. The legal background is para 152 of the Supreme Court’s 27 May judgment, which the ECI’s supporters cite. It says Form 6 is tailored to revision under Section 21(2) of the RP Act and may not always fit an intensive revision; the Commission therefore “retains a degree of residual authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework”, but “such authority, however, is not unbounded”, must remain “cognisant of the existing statutory scheme”, and any departure needs “a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved”. Lavasa calls this “legalese at its ambivalent best”. Does it recognise only an authority to formulate, not approval of a specific form? And if the ECI relied on it, why did an EC, nearly three months later, call the changes illegal, and did the Commission ever examine his objections?

5. The dissent is about process, not the SIR itself. The letters, Lavasa notes, do not necessarily oppose the SIR. They reportedly objected to:

• the “illegalities” in changing Form 6;
• denying Electoral Registration Officers access to ECINet, which impeded their statutory duties;
• being excluded from decisions: no meetings for four months, no agenda or minutes circulated for a year;
• 16 lakh appeals filed before appellate tribunals against inclusion in West Bengal’s “purified” roll without their knowledge.

“These made the ECI’s functioning questionable.”

6. The remedy: publish the minutes. The SIR, “arguably an abrupt, aggressive and ambitious decision”, was widely perceived as “unfair, exclusionary and arbitrary”. If the ECI wants people to believe the decision was unanimous, Lavasa says, it must put the minutes of the relevant meeting in the public domain.

7. Can anyone be held to account? The Supreme Court may set aside decisions it finds illegal. But whether that would cost the CEC or ECs their posts is another matter: impeachment is politically fraught, and “the call of the conscience is a far cry”. Lavasa compares the institution to Milton’s fallen angels, and ends with Goldsmith’s line from The Citizen of the World (1762): institutions too can rise after a fall. “Let Nirvachan Sadan take the lead.”

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Constitution and cases:

• Article 324: ECI; 324(5): CEC removed like a Supreme Court judge; ECs only on the CEC’s recommendation.
• Article 326: elections on the basis of adult suffrage (18 years).
• T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): multi-member Commission upheld; decisions by majority.
• ECI constituted on 25 January 1950 (observed as National Voters’ Day); multi-member since 1 October 1993.

Statute and forms:

• RP Act, 1950, Section 21: preparation and revision of rolls; the SIR is conducted under it.
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Form 6 enrolment, Form 7 objection or deletion, Form 8 correction or shifting.
• CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023: selection committee of the PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; term six years or age 65.

Office-holders (October 2026):

• CEC: Gyanesh Kumar; ECs: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
• Nirvachan Sadan: the ECI’s headquarters in New Delhi.

⚠️ Watch the trap: The SIR is conducted under Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950, which deals with electoral rolls, not under the RP Act, 1951, which deals with the conduct of elections. And only the CEC enjoys judge-like protection from removal; an EC can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation.

The Debate

For the author’s view. A multi-member Commission exists precisely so that no single officer controls elections. If members are not consulted, meetings are not held and minutes are not circulated, the design is hollowed out. Shifting explanations and a reported remark from the CJI that contradicts the ECI’s own claim deepen the trust deficit. Publishing minutes costs little and would settle the unanimity question.

The other side. The Commission maintains that its decisions were unanimous and that written notes are routine in collective bodies. The Supreme Court upheld the SIR, and para 152 does recognise a residual power to adapt documentation for an intensive revision. Reported letters and remarks are not findings; the legality of the Form 6 changes is for the Court to decide. Clean rolls are themselves a constitutional duty under Article 324.

The balanced verdict. The legal questions will be settled in court, but credibility is not a legal question. Whatever the merits of the SIR, a Commission that records its deliberations, explains changes on the record and shows that dissent was considered would be far harder to attack. Transparency serves the ECI’s own interest.

How to Think About This

Collective bodies need collective processes. For any multi-member regulator or commission (ECI, UPSC, SEBI board, Finance Commission), legitimacy depends on regular meetings, circulated agendas, recorded minutes and formal dissent. Use this lens in GS2 answers on institutional reform.

Authority versus legitimacy. The ECI has wide constitutional authority under Article 324; its legitimacy depends on being seen as impartial. Mains answers on constitutional bodies score when they make this distinction.

GS4 angle. Lavasa frames the crisis as one of conscience and accountability: when formal mechanisms such as impeachment are impractical, institutional integrity depends on the ethics of those in office. Link to transparency, probity and the Nolan principles of public life.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Thesis: the ECI’s SIR troubles are self-inflicted; publishing the minutes of the SIR decision would test its claim of unanimity.
• Form 6: two versions used; declaration withdrawn; the CJI reportedly said on 5 October that no modified Form 6 was approved.
• Para 152 (27 May): a “residual authority” over documentation, but “not unbounded”.
• Dissent: 14 letters by ECs Sandhu and Joshi; no meetings for four months; no minutes for a year; ECINet access denied to EROs.
• Law: Article 324; RP Act 1950, Section 21; T.N. Seshan (1995): decisions by majority.

Sources: The Indian Express, column by Ashok Lavasa, 7 October 2026; background: Ujiyari, 24 September 2026

Source: Can the ECI Untie Knots of Its Own Making? Lavasa on SIR — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis