1Did the Commission decide, or one man?
Article 324T.N. Seshan (1995)2023 Act
What the law says
Article 324 vests elections in the Election Commission, a body rather than an office. In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) the Supreme Court held that a multi-member Commission decides unanimously where possible and otherwise by majority, and warned against its powers resting with one person. The 2023 Act says the same, and the Court repeated it on 5 October 2026.
Where it drifts
Two of the three commissioners recorded at least 14 written objections to orders, appeals and form changes they say were issued without them. If those went ahead over their objection, they may not be decisions of the Commission at all.
The ECI's answer
Differing views are normal deliberation, and every final decision was unanimous.
What would settle it
The Commission's files, agendas and minutes, which the Court has called for. Then: are decisions taken without the full Commission void, and what happens to everything done under them?
2Can the ECI change what it takes to become a voter, without a change in law?
Article 326Article 14Mohinder Singh Gill (1978)Registration of Electors Rules
What the law says
Article 326 gives every adult citizen the vote and allows disqualification only "under any law made by the appropriate Legislature". Form 6 is prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, which only the government can amend. In Mohinder Singh Gill the Supreme Court held that the ECI's Article 324 power fills gaps in the law but cannot override it.
Where it drifts
The online Form 6 could not be submitted without a declaration and parents' roll details, which in effect added an eligibility test. Two commissioners said this needed a rule change. The Court said on 5 October that it has not approved any modified Form 6.
The ECI's answer
Form 6 itself is unchanged. The declaration is a separate SIR condition, ordered unanimously and upheld in the May 2026 judgment.
What would settle it
Whether the post-May additions fall within that judgment, and whether paper and online applicants faced different tests. Treating them differently would raise an Article 14 equality problem.
3Who carries the burden of proof, the citizen or the state?
Article 326Lal Babu Hussein (1995)RP Act 1950
What the law says
In Lal Babu Hussein (1995) the Supreme Court held that people already on the roll are presumed eligible and cannot be removed without notice and a fair hearing. The 1950 Act provides for deletion through objection and inquiry.
Where it drifts
Most SIR deletions happened at the draft stage, for not returning a form or not being found at home, with no individual finding of ineligibility. Unmapped voters had to prove eligibility with documents. Reported deletions fall unevenly: against women in Bihar and Muslims in Bengal's "logical discrepancy" category.
The ECI's answer
The May 2026 judgment rejected the argument that the SIR negates the presumption of citizenship. Anyone excluded can re-apply or appeal, and there is no bias.
What would settle it
Deletion data broken down by reason, category and locality, which the ECI has not released. And a ruling on whether removal for not returning a form counts as deletion without a hearing.
4Who controls the roll: the officer the law names, or central software?
RP Act 1950, s.13BAppeals, s.24
What the law says
Section 13B of the 1950 Act makes the Electoral Registration Officer responsible for preparing each constituency's roll. Inclusion, deletion and appeals all run through that officer and named appellate authorities.
Where it drifts
EROs reportedly lost ERONet powers; central systems generated "logical discrepancy" flags, reportedly using AI; software could not restore some verified voters in Goa; and 16 lakh appeals were filed in the ECI's name in Bengal, allegedly without the state CEO knowing.
The ECI's answer
ECINet improves accuracy and service. Since 26 September it has been under review for compliance with the Acts and Rules.
What would settle it
Publishing that review, and clarity on who authorised the flags and the appeals. If a statutory officer's decisions are being made by a central system, the legal chain of accountability breaks.
5Is the referee independent, and seen to be?
Basic structureArticle 324(5)Anoop Baranwal (2023)Article 19
What the law says
The Supreme Court has held free and fair elections to be part of the Constitution's basic structure. In Anoop Baranwal (2023) it required an independent selection panel until Parliament legislated. Article 324(5) protects the CEC from removal except like a Supreme Court judge.
Where it drifts
The 2023 Act gave the government 2 of 3 seats on the panel and passed with the opposition walked out or suspended. Every current commissioner was chosen under it while the challenge is pending. The ECI narrowed public access to election records and limited how long footage is kept. Removal notices were rejected without debate, and the Court had to step in to protect peaceful protest.
The ECI's and government's answer
Executive selection was the norm for 70 years and the Act is valid law. The records changes protect voter privacy, and the police acted within the law.
What would settle it
The larger-bench ruling on the 2023 Act. Even if the Act stands, a practical question remains: when the ECI's own members dissent, who can hold the CEC to account, other than the Court?
The common thread
Every question turns on records the ECI holds but has not published: minutes, deletion data, software rules and appeal authorisations. The Supreme Court is now the only body actively asking for them. Its answers, expected after the ECI files its reply, will settle more of this than any statement from either side.
This page is analysis built on public reporting and the cited judgments. Summaries of older judgments are simplified; read the linked texts before relying on them.