Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa has questioned how the Election Commission can treat differing views as routine observations while allowing decisions to proceed despite objections from two of its three members.
Calling for greater transparency, Lavasa said the poll panel must clarify whether the disagreements constitute formal dissent and explain how decisions were reached.
He has also questioned whether officials implementing the exercise fully understand the process. Read: Disagreement Sign Of Democracy: BJP Slams Opposition On Poll Body Row Lavasa has cited the appeals process in West Bengal to question the accuracy of the voter roll revision exercise.
“My very considered view in the matter is that Phase 3 of the SIR should be scrapped because things like mapping and logical discrepancies have not been explained to the people,” Lavasa has said. “I don’t even know whether they are clear to the staff that is implementing this,” he has added.
Ashok Lavasa’s comments come in the wake of a media report claiming that the two election commissioners had differed with several of the ECI’s decisions.
The reported differences have nevertheless raised questions about decision-making within the three-member constitutional body, particularly over the distinction between internal observations and formal dissent. His remarks come after a report by The Indian Express claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected to several decisions taken by the poll body without their knowledge. The Election Commission has rejected the apprehensions, stating that all decisions taken over the past year were unanimous and that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberation. Lavasa has questioned the distinction between formal dissent and internal observations, saying the Election Commission must provide a detailed account if the objections were indeed recorded as dissent. He has also questioned how a decision can be enforced when two election commissioners hold a contrary view. “It is surprising that two election commissioners can dissent and one can decide. “It seems that the objection is that this form was not approved as per the due process. “I am very certain that no form of this nature can be changed by the commission on its own. He has added that the Election Commission must clarify whether the required rules and procedures were followed. The SIR aims to identify and remove ineligible names, including those of dead or duplicate voters, from voter rolls. He has argued that the figures raise questions about the deletion process and called for a time-bound mechanism to restore the names of eligible voters. “In those cases, I think we should find a very easy, time-bound system of getting all those people back into the rolls. The Election Commission has maintained that all decisions taken during the past year were unanimous. It has also maintained that its decisions were taken in accordance with the law and established procedures. Lavasa’s demand for detailed explanations centres on two issues: whether the objections constitute formal dissent and whether the Commission followed the required legal process while taking decisions on electoral roll revisions and voter registration.
So that is one important aspect,” he has said. In an interview with NDTV, Lavasa, who served on the Election Commission from 2018 to 2020, has also called for the scrapping of Phase 3 of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that key aspects of the exercise, including voter mapping and alleged logical discrepancies, remain unexplained. Lavasa himself had formally recorded dissenting opinions on certain Election Commission decisions during his tenure in 2019. Read: Attempt To Divert Attention: Top Court On Collegium Mention In Poll Body Row The reported changes to Form 6, used for registering new voters, have emerged as another point of concern. They reportedly argued that the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would need to be amended before such a move could be implemented. Lavasa has called for Phase 3 of the SIR to be discontinued until the Election Commission provides greater clarity on the process. Phase 3 is underway across 16 states and three Union Territories While the first two phases were completed in 2025 and early 2026. He has said at least 38 lakh appeals were filed after the second phase of the SIR. 93% of the disposed cases were decided in favour of voters whose names had been wrongfully deleted, according to Lavasa. Its response has come after the Express report claimed that Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on record to several decisions, including those concerning Form 6 and the SIR. Lavasa served as an election commissioner from 2018 to 2020, leaving office two years before the end of his tenure. During the 2019 general election period, he recorded dissenting opinions on certain decisions of the Election Commission.
“If it was a dissent, then the EC needs to issue a point-by-point clarification with dates and details,” he has said. A lot of the mist has to clear,” he has said. The two election commissioners objected to linking new voter applications to the SIR process and described the change as “illegal and unauthorised”, according to The Indian Express . Lavasa has said the Election Commission cannot independently alter a form of this nature without following the prescribed legal procedure. “93% of the cases, which have been decided by the appellate tribunal, have been in favour of people who have been wrongfully deleted,” he has said. “It does question the entire process of deletion,” he has said. The Commission has said that written notes, observations, and technical suggestions are part of normal institutional deliberations.
His latest comments have brought his earlier experience with internal disagreements back into focus as questions emerge over the nature of objections reportedly raised by the current Election Commissioners.
