By Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo
Then, should the Assembly polls be re-held in all Assembly constituencies in Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry? These are the states where Assembly elections took place after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Following those elections, new governments were formed in Bihar under the NDA alliance. The BJP formed the government in West Bengal after defeating the Trinamool Congress, which had governed the state for 15 years, while the BJP retained power in Assam.
In Tamil Nadu, actor-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) made a historic electoral breakthrough in the May 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, emerging as the single-largest party with 108 out of 234 seats and forming the government with the support of the Congress, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), and the Left parties (CPI and CPI(M)).
In Kerala, the United Democratic Front (UDF), led by the Congress, returned to power after 10 years following a historic landslide victory in the May 2026 Assembly elections, winning 102 out of 140 seats.
Interestingly, in the April 2026 Assembly elections, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by All India N.R. Congress (AINRC) Chief Minister N. Rangasamy, successfully retained power in Puducherry, securing a consecutive term by winning 18 seats and crossing the majority mark in the 30-member House.
Now, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a special drive across 20 states to add eligible voters who may have been left out after the completion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). This raises an important question about electoral-roll accountability: if the names of many eligible voters have been deleted through the SIR process, and elections have already taken place using the revised electoral rolls, what does this mean for those elections?
For example, in Bihar, around 69 lakh voter names were removed; more than 63 lakh voters were removed in West Bengal; and more than 10 lakh names were removed in Assam. In Kerala, 8,57,298 voter names were removed during the SIR process, while in Tamil Nadu, 97.37 lakh names were deleted under various categories. In Puducherry, 16,619 ineligible electors were deleted after the draft roll.
Assembly elections have already taken place in these states after the respective electoral-roll revision exercises. Therefore, the ECI’s decision to conduct a special drive to add eligible voters who may have been left out raises a legitimate question about the accuracy and accountability of the electoral rolls that were used in those elections.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I woke up a short while ago and, after reading the front-page story in The Indian Express, felt compelled to put a direct question to the ECI through Twitter. Since I have already explained my reasons in my previous tweet and article on September 29, I am therefore not repeating here why I always take the help of Twitter or National Political Mirror to ask questions of the ECI, any political executive, lawmaker, concerned department chief, or senior bureaucrat.
I am putting the direct question to the ECI in the first paragraph. And I am not the type of political journalist who asks questions according to the convenience or interests of any political executive, lawmaker, concerned department chief, or senior bureaucrat.
Trust me, I will always do what I believe is good for the national interest and national security, rather than what serves my personal interests or the interests of my family.
For me, this is not about making a political allegation. It is about asking a straightforward question concerning the integrity, transparency, and accountability of the electoral-roll revision process—and whether voters who were subsequently identified as eligible should have had their names included before the elections were conducted.
Well, The Indian Express, one of India’s oldest newspapers, reported in its October 2 edition that the September 29 letter from the Election Commission’s Secretary to all Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) states:
“In State/UTs where SIR has already been completed, a special drive shall be undertaken by the Chief Electoral Officer, District Election Officers and EROs for the enrolment of left-out and young/first-time eligible electors under the process of continuous updation.”
“It has been told to visit the houses, especially in cases where the voters are not mapped elsewhere, are not duplicates, or are not deceased, and get their Form 6 filled up,” one of the officers told The Indian Express.
The CEOs have been asked to seek the assistance of political parties, or booth-level agents of political parties, for this exercise.
And I believe the latest step by the ECI indicates that it is trying to rebuild the image of the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India, Gyanesh Kumar, whose credibility came under scrutiny after The Indian Express reported that his fellow Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had objected on record 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken in the name of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without their knowledge.
These objections reportedly included changes to Form 6, which is used by new voters to enrol, and the centralised control of ECINet, the software on which the electoral rolls were prepared during the SIR and on which the electoral rolls now sit.
In my view, the Election Commission of India’s image and public trust can be rebuilt only through full accountability and transparency regarding the decisions taken during the SIR process. This should include removing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi from their positions, independently examining their roles, and taking appropriate action against them based on the findings.
To ensure greater transparency and protect the national interest, opposition political parties could also demand that the number of Election Commission members be increased from three to five. The additional members could be selected from diverse services and professional backgrounds, including officers from the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, as well as former judges.
Seema Khanna’s Role Needs to Be Investigated
The Indian Express reported that all Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) have been asked to bring back people who were unjustly left out of the electoral rolls through Form 6, the form used for new voter enrolment.
This is the same route that Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer has to use to re-enrol the 97 voters who were left out of the state’s final electoral roll on February 21, despite having been found eligible by its own Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
As The Indian Express reported on September 24, the 97 voters had been deleted at the draft stage, but they subsequently produced the required documents and were cleared by the EROs. The EROs then found that ECINet had no option to reverse the deletion.The CEO’s eight communications to the Commission over seven days, each copied to Seema Khanna, who heads the Election Commission’s IT department and oversees its digital and technology systems, reportedly went unanswered, and the final electoral roll was published without the names of those 97 voters.
And trust me, the role of DG (IT) Seema Khanna involves systems and responsibilities of enormous national importance. However, I am not making any personal comment against Seema Khanna, since there are many other people and factors involved in the process. Nevertheless, I believe that her role during the SIR process should also be examined as part of any comprehensive inquiry into the technological and administrative aspects of the exercise.
And I would like to conclude by saying that, yes, I and National Political Mirror believe that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commissioners (ECs) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi should be removed from their respective positions and that appropriate action should be taken against them in the national interest and for national security, as all three appear to be following their own interpretation of the Constitution rather than the Constitution of India.
For example, the Election Commissioners reportedly complained to the Cabinet Secretary against the CEC. However, as per the constitutional framework, the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President of India and function under the authority provided by the Constitution and applicable laws
