NEW DELHI : The Election Commission of India is currently navigating a fresh political controversy following reports of internal friction regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. Opposition leaders have called for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after reports surfaced detailing repeated objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. These concerns, reportedly expressed at least 14 times over a 10-month period, centered on sensitive issues including voter deletions and the management of electoral roll data.
This latest development has reignited a long-standing debate regarding the internal dynamics of the poll panel and the limits of authority within a multi-member body. While the commission is designed to function as a collective, history shows that disagreements among its members have occasionally spilled into the public and judicial spheres, challenging the institution’s tradition of consensus.
The Seshan Era and the Multi-Member Commission
The most significant constitutional challenge to the commission’s structure occurred in the early 1990s. When Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan was appointed in 1990, he became known for his assertive enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. However, in October 1993, the government moved to transform the commission into a three-member body by appointing MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners.
Seshan challenged these appointments in the Supreme Court, arguing that the move was a deliberate attempt to dilute his authority. The legal battle exposed deep personal rifts, with the court noting “unpleasant exchanges” between the commissioners. In its landmark 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the multi-member structure, ruling that the Chief Election Commissioner does not hold superior status over the other members. The court emphasized that the CEC cannot treat fellow commissioners as subordinates, warning that such an approach would render the other members “non-functional or ornamental.”
The 2019 Dissent and the Question of Minority Views
More than two decades later, the commission faced another public dispute during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa famously dissented from the majority view regarding several complaints of Model Code of Conduct violations involving high-profile political leaders. When his requests to have his dissenting opinions formally recorded in the final orders were not met, Lavasa publicly withdrew from proceedings related to such complaints.
Then-CEC Sunil Arora addressed the situation by stating that the three members of the commission were not expected to be “clones of each other.” While the commission ultimately rejected the demand to include minority views in final orders, it established a protocol where the opinions of all members would be recorded in the internal proceedings. Lavasa eventually resigned from his post in 2020 to join the Asian Development Bank, departing before he could ascend to the role of Chief Election Commissioner. These historical precedents highlight the ongoing tension between the necessity of internal debate and the requirement for a unified institutional voice.
