ECI rejects claims of an institutional rupture, saying differences among Election Commissioners, written objections and internal checks are part of the constitutional process, while stressing legal safeguards, majority decisions, judicial scrutiny and transparency in electoral roll revision.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rejected suggestions that differences among its three members indicate an institutional “rupture”, maintaining that internal objections, written notes and disagreements are part of the established functioning of a multi-member constitutional body.
The response came after a September 23 report by The Indian Express stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised 14 formal objections over a period of 10 months concerning decisions taken by the Commission. Some of the objections were reportedly linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
While acknowledging that such objections are part of the record, the ECI said the report did not adequately set out the legal framework, safeguards and judicial scrutiny associated with the SIR exercise. The Commission maintained that the existence of differences or dissenting notes, by itself, does not establish illegality, dysfunction or an institutional crisis.
The ECI has operated as a multi-member constitutional body since 1993. Under the applicable framework, differences among members are resolved through majority decisions. The Commission said this mechanism is an integral part of its functioning and allows individual members to place their views and objections on record.
The Commission also pointed to previous instances of significant disagreements among its members. Experts cited the 2009 episode when then Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami recommended the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla over alleged partisan conduct. The government rejected the recommendation, and Chawla later became Chief Election Commissioner.
Another major dispute occurred between 1993 and 1995 when then CEC T.N. Seshan challenged the creation and functioning of the multi-member Election Commission in court. The dispute resulted in an open legal battle involving Election Commissioners M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Krishnamurthy.
According to experts, these historical episodes demonstrate that disagreements within the Commission are not unprecedented. Gill subsequently entered politics and served as a Union Cabinet Minister after completing his tenure as an Election Commissioner.
In a press note issued on Wednesday, the ECI said internal notes, objections and institutional checks are routine mechanisms intended to promote transparency, accountability and legal compliance. It also stated that official decisions are taken under the legal framework governing the Commission’s conduct of business.
The Commission further emphasised that every Election Commissioner and officer has the opportunity to place suggestions and proposals concerning electoral reforms on record. Such internal scrutiny, it said, is consistent with the functioning of a constitutional institution.
Legal observers have also distinguished between changes to statutory forms and the introduction of linked declarations, noting that these constitute separate legal actions requiring consideration within the applicable framework.
Concerns regarding the alleged “centralisation” of electoral data have also emerged in connection with the objections. Commissioners have sought an audit of database access, but the request for an audit does not itself establish that electoral data was tampered with.
| Also Read: Supreme Court to hear Banerjee’s plea against ECI TMC name freeze |
The ECI’s position is that the recorded objections should be viewed within the broader constitutional, legal and procedural framework governing the Commission. It maintained that differences among members, including formal objections, are part of institutional checks and do not automatically amount to a breakdown of the electoral body’s functioning.
