SIR question gets bigger: EC says no nationwide decision was taken in 2025

The Election Commission’s (EC) own records have raised a question over the decision-making trail behind the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

In a Right To Information (RTI) reply, the poll panel said it had not taken any decision to initiate SIR across the country in 2025, even as the Commission has subsequently maintained that its June 24, 2025 order for the exercise had the unanimous approval of all three commissioners.

The RTI reply was issued in response to an application filed by transparency activist Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), on July 28, 2025.

She had sought details of the studies or analyses conducted for SIR, reference numbers of the relevant files and copies of the files, including notings and correspondence, that would establish how the decision to undertake the exercise was reached.

The application came about a month after the EC issued its June 24 order for a SIR in Bihar.

The EC’s press note issued the same day said the exercise would begin in Bihar, with house-to-house verification aimed at ensuring that eligible citizens were included in the electoral rolls and ineligible voters excluded.

In his response to Bharadwaj’s first appeal, Election Commission Principal Secretary TC Kom, who was acting as the First Appellate Authority, said the Chief Public Information Officer had been asked to provide information on the reference numbers of files relating to a decision to initiate SIR across the country in 2025.

However, according to the RTI response, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) did not provide the requested information because it was not available with him 'in any material form'.

Kom then stated: 'The Commission has so far not taken any decision on initiating a SIR across the country in 2025 and hence no information to be provided in this regard.'

The response is significant because the Commission’s June 24 order was already being implemented in Bihar.

The EC’s official order said the Commission had previously exercised its powers to undertake intensive revisions in all or parts of the country, while its June 24 press note specifically announced the Bihar exercise.

Bharadwaj told The News Minute that the absence of the requested decision-making files raised questions about where the decision originated.

She questioned whether the Prime Minister’s Office or the Ministry of Home Affairs had any role, while also raising concerns about the institutional independence of the Election Commission.

Those are her questions and allegations, not findings established by the RTI response itself.

There is, however, an important development that needs to be read alongside the RTI reply.

In September 2026, amid a controversy over reported differences within the poll panel, the EC said that its June 24, 2025 SIR order was issued for all States and Union Territories, beginning with Bihar, followed by West Bengal and the remaining States and UTs, and that the order had the unanimous approval of the Commission. The EC also said subsequent SIR schedules had received unanimous approval.

That later clarification sits in apparent tension with the wording of the RTI response, which specifically said that the Commission had 'so far not taken any decision' on initiating SIR across the country in 2025.

The RTI record therefore raises a question about the interpretation and timing of the decision referred to in the two communications, rather than by itself establishing that an outside authority took the decision.

The issue has surfaced alongside fresh reporting on differences within the Election Commission.

An investigation by The Indian Express, published on September 25, reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months over decisions and orders concerning electoral-roll management.

The report said their objections covered issues including the addition and deletion of voters and changes in the management of electoral-roll systems.

The Indian Express report said the two commissioners had objected on record to several actions they believed had been taken without their knowledge.

The report also covered objections relating to changes in Form 6, which is used for registering new voters, and the handling of electoral-roll data.

The EC has rejected the suggestion that there was a lack of unanimity over SIR.

Following the report, the poll panel said that decisions concerning SIR, including the nationwide exercise, had received the approval of all three commissioners.

The controversy now turns on the documentary record behind the exercise.

The RTI reply says the requested material concerning a nationwide SIR decision was not available with the CPIO and that the Commission had not taken such a decision ‘so far’.

The EC’s subsequent public position, meanwhile, is that the June 24, 2025 order covered the country and had unanimous approval.

For an institution constitutionally entrusted with the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections, the question is therefore not simply whether SIR was undertaken, but how the decision was recorded, communicated and subsequently described in the Commission’s own records.