New Delhi: Activists Prashant Bhushan, Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora on Thursday questioned the Election Commission’s decision-making process behind the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court leaves several critical questions unanswered.
Addressing a press conference, the activists examined the Commission’s counter-affidavit filed on October 26 and alleged contradictions between its claim that decisions relating to the SIR were taken unanimously and an earlier response under the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that no decision had been taken to initiate the exercise nationwide in 2025.
Bharadwaj said she had sought records relating to the decision but was informed by the Election Commission’s Public Information Officer that no such file was available. She said the Commission’s Principal Secretary subsequently stated in writing, before the First Appellate Authority, that no decision had been taken to initiate the nationwide SIR in 2025.
“If the Election Commission did not take this decision, then who did?” she asked, questioning the absence of records establishing when and how the decision was made.
The activists said the Commission’s affidavit maintained that three orders relating to the SIR, issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, had been approved unanimously. They questioned why records demonstrating such unanimity had not been provided in response to the RTI request.
Bhushan alleged that the affidavit acknowledged objections raised by two Election Commissioners but sought to minimise them as suggestions or differences of opinion. The activists also sought details of decisions approved electronically in urgent situations, including relevant emails and other communications.
They raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral roll database and the authority to add or delete voters’ names. According to their analysis of the affidavit, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had previously flagged concerns about the gradual centralisation of the database and proposed an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could make changes.
The Commission’s affidavit, they said, referred to a high-level committee constituted on October 14, comprising senior Deputy Election Commissioners, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru, to examine whether its ECINet system complied with applicable laws and rules.
Bhushan alleged that the addition and deletion of names had been centralised through information technology units at the Commission’s Delhi office, bypassing the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers. The activists also questioned changes to the online version of Form 6, alleging that an additional declaration had been introduced without requisite authorisation.
They further referred to the Supreme Court hearing on October 28 concerning the SIR exercise in Delhi. According to the activists, the court had clarified that the use of logical discrepancies as a criterion was permitted as an interim measure in West Bengal, with its legal validity yet to be adjudicated. They also said the court had observed that asking voters whose names had been deleted during the revision to fill out Form 6 was an error.
The activists raised questions about around 16 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal’s electoral rolls. They said the Commission’s affidavit stated that the appeals had been filed by officials in the office of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer and that the matter had not been brought to the Commission’s attention.
They sought an inquiry into who had directed the filing of the appeals, who had submitted them and whether software had generated them automatically.
They also questioned whether disciplinary or other action had been taken against officials who allegedly acted without the Commission’s approval or authority.
The activists called on the Election Commission to disclose the relevant records and clarify the authorisation, implementation and oversight of the nationwide SIR exercise.
Separately, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijit Dipke on Thursday assured support to those fighting against injustice and urged people to give the organisation time to respond to national issues.
In a video message posted on Instagram, Dipke said the party stood in solidarity with the family of deceased IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode, those raising concerns about developments at Jamia Millia Islamia, and people protesting against the felling of trees in the Bhimashankar wildlife sanctuary in Maharashtra’s Raigad district for a proposed hydroelectric project.
Dipke said the organisation, formed three or four months ago, had limited resources and was dealing with police action against its leaders and volunteers, making it difficult to respond immediately to every emerging issue.
Responding to questions about the party’s silence on various issues, Dipke said it had spoken about Wakode’s case and the police action against his parents. He described the student’s death by suicide as part of a wider concern, saying other marginalised students at IITs had also died by suicide.
He said the party had also responded to developments at Jamia Millia Islamia and the Bhimashankar wildlife sanctuary.
“If we are not able to speak on something immediately, then please give us a little time,” Dipke said, adding that the organisation would try to raise its voice on as many issues as possible.
He said he had been jailed twice in the preceding 10–12 days, while CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das had spent eight days in jail. Hundreds of volunteers had also been detained, he claimed.
Dipke said the party was not a decades-old organisation with a large cadre or extensive resources and was relying on public support to expand its work.
“We stand with Jamia, we stand for Bhima Koregaon (accused), we stand for Sahil Wakode’s family, and we also stand for every person fighting against injustice,” he said.
The CJP has been protesting against alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission and the SIR of electoral rolls, and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.