The Election Commission of India (ECI) is once again facing scrutiny amid reports of differences within the three-member poll panel. The latest controversy involves Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, with reports suggesting disagreements over some key decisions, including those related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
Opposition parties have criticised the functioning of the commission and called for Kumar’s resignation and judicial intervention. The ECI, however, has rejected allegations of one-sided decision-making, maintaining that differences are part of the deliberative process and that decisions of the commission are taken unanimously.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The latest dispute is not the first instance of internal disagreement or controversy involving the poll panel. Over the decades, the ECI has faced questions surrounding the powers of the Chief Election Commissioner, the role of individual commissioners and the manner in which dissent is handled.
One of the most significant episodes occurred in the 1990s during the tenure of TN Seshan as Chief Election Commissioner. At the time, the Election Commission had traditionally functioned as a single-member body. The appointment of MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as election commissioners in 1993 led to a dispute over the structure and authority of the institution.
Seshan challenged the appointments, arguing that the presence of additional commissioners diluted the authority of the CEC. The Supreme Court rejected his challenge in 1995, holding that the Constitution permitted a multi-member Election Commission and that the other commissioners had a meaningful role in decision-making.
Another controversy emerged in 2009 involving Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. Then CEC N Gopalaswami recommended Chawla’s removal following allegations that he had acted in a partisan manner. Chawla rejected the allegations. The government opposed the recommendation, which was ultimately rejected by President Pratibha Patil on the government’s advice. Chawla subsequently became Chief Election Commissioner in April 2009.
The issue of dissent resurfaced during the 2019 Lok Sabha election when Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa differed from the majority in several cases involving alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct. Decisions in those matters were taken by a 2-1 majority.
Lavasa also objected to his dissenting views not being adequately reflected in the commission’s final orders. He later recused himself from meetings dealing with Model Code complaints. The episode highlighted questions over how disagreements among members of a multi-member commission should be recorded and communicated.
In March 2024, Election Commissioner Arun Goel resigned shortly before the announcement of the Lok Sabha election schedule. His resignation temporarily left CEC Rajiv Kumar as the sole member of the commission. Reports suggested possible differences between the two, although the precise reason for Goel’s resignation was not publicly established. Kumar said Goel had cited personal reasons.
These episodes illustrate how disagreements surrounding the ECI have taken different forms over the years, from disputes over institutional powers and appointments to questions about dissent and decision-making.
The latest controversy involving the three-member commission has therefore revived long-standing questions about how the constitutional body handles internal differences while exercising its responsibilities over India’s electoral process.
