When Commissioners Disagree: Collective Functioning of the ECI and the SIR

The Lift Line

A collegial body is designed so that one member’s doubts can stop a mistake. When the doubts go unanswered, the design has failed, whoever is right on the substance.

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

The Indian Express editorial of 24 September follows the paper’s own investigation, published on 23 September, into the Election Commission’s functioning during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The same day, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court split on whether the challenge to the 2023 appointments law should go to a larger Bench (see our deep dive on the split verdict). Set aside the political heat and a textbook question remains: how should a multi-member constitutional body take decisions, and how much of that should the public see? That question links Article 324, the Seshan judgment, the 2023 law on appointments, and the right to vote under Article 326. We have covered the SIR through the Maharashtra draft roll, the Form 7 objections in Godda and the case for an independent audit.

GS Paper 2: Appointment to various constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various constitutional bodies; salient features of the Representation of People’s Act. GS Paper 4: Accountability and ethical governance; probity; transparency in public institutions.

Background and Context

What the report says. According to The Indian Express investigation, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections 14 times in ten months to decisions taken in the Commission’s name during the SIR, while Gyanesh Kumar was Chief Election Commissioner. The objections reportedly concerned changes to Form 6, decisions on additions and deletions taken without the full Commission, and the centralisation of the voter database, which they said moved control away from district and State electoral officers. When the objections went unaddressed, the two appealed to the Cabinet Secretary.

What the Commission says. In a statement issued on 23 September (PIB), the Election Commission said that all decisions, including those on the SIR, “are the outcome of unanimous decisions of the full Commission”, that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation, and that its orders follow the procedures laid down in the 2023 Act. It described members’ written notes and technical suggestions as standard practice.

The constitutional frame:

How the Commission became multi-member. Two Election Commissioners were first appointed in October 1989 and the posts were abolished in January 1990. The Commission became multi-member again on 1 October 1993. In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), a Constitution Bench upheld this, holding that the CEC and the ECs share power and that the Commission decides as a body, by majority if members differ.

Appointments today. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the President appoints on the recommendation of a Selection Committee of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha. The term is six years or up to age 65. The Act followed Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), where the Supreme Court had set an interim committee that included the Chief Justice of India.

The Analysis

1. The dissent is the story, not the politics. The editorial accepts that roll revision is the ECI’s duty and calls the link between deletions and electoral outcomes “more political than empirical”. Its point is institutional: all three members were appointed by the present government, yet two of them objected repeatedly on record, which makes the concerns hard to dismiss as partisan.

2. Collective functioning. The Commissioners said they were kept in the dark in a body meant to reach consensus or abide by the majority. For a collegial body, this matters more than any single decision: a decision taken without the full Commission lacks the legitimacy the Constitution designed in.

3. The SIR’s design. The editorial argues that the process shifted the burden of proof onto the voter, demanded paperwork within tight time frames, and set up an appellate process without deadlines. In West Bengal, it says, nearly 27 lakh voters were disenfranchised; across States, 13 crore names were struck off the draft rolls. It calls the result an “opaque and heartless citizenship test”.

4. The court’s role. The editorial credits the Supreme Court’s Bihar interventions (accepting Aadhaar as a document, asking for reasons for deletions) but argues that it has since given the ECI the benefit of every doubt. In a May ruling on the SIR petitions, it says, the Court rightly underlined the ECI’s mandate to keep accurate rolls but also gave it “unfettered procedural latitude”; while holding that the ECI can make only a “limited inquiry into citizenship”, the ruling, in the editorial’s view, set the stage for a citizenship test by the government’s “Competent Authority”. It asks the court to take up the questions now on record.

5. What it wants. The CEC should answer the Commissioners point by point; Form 6 should be restored to its earlier version; and State election machinery should regain access to the voter database.

The precision that earns marks. Keep three things apart: the ECI’s power to revise rolls (Article 324 and Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950), the procedure it adopts (forms, documents, timelines, appeals), and the process of decision inside the Commission (collective, by majority). An answer that attacks or defends the power when the question is about procedure or decision-making misses the point.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Constitution and law:

• Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections in the Election Commission.
• Under Article 324(5), an Election Commissioner can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation.
• The CEC is removable only in the manner and on the grounds of a Supreme Court judge.
• Article 326 provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage (18 years and above).
• Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision of rolls.
• Form 6 is the application for inclusion of a new elector’s name.

The Commission:

• The ECI has been multi-member continuously since 1 October 1993.
• T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) upheld the multi-member ECI; the CEC is first among equals.
• The 2023 Act Selection Committee: Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
• Term of the CEC and ECs: six years or age 65, whichever is earlier.

Prelims, the traps:

• The Chief Justice of India was on the interim committee set by Anoop Baranwal (2023), not on the 2023 Act’s committee.
• The CEC’s removal protection does not extend equally to ECs, who can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation.
• The ECI conducts elections to Parliament, State legislatures, President and Vice-President; municipal and panchayat polls are run by State Election Commissions (Article 243K, 243ZA).

⚠️ Watch the trap: The ECI’s decisions are not the CEC’s alone. The CEC presides, but in a multi-member Commission the body decides, by majority where members differ.

The Debate

The editorial’s case. Repeated written objections by two members, left unanswered, show a breakdown of collective functioning. Since the SIR affects the franchise of crores of citizens, the Commission owes an explanation and the courts a closer look.

The Commission’s case. Members’ notes and suggestions are part of normal deliberation; disagreement during drafting is not dissent from the final decision; orders carry full legal sanction. Cleaning the rolls is a constitutional duty, and aggressive revision removes dead, shifted and duplicate entries.

The balanced verdict. The facts of what each member agreed to are contested, and an aspirant should not take sides on them. The durable lesson is institutional: a multi-member body gains credibility when its decision-making is collective and recorded, when procedure affecting the vote carries notice, reasons and time-bound appeal, and when data on deletions are published. Those safeguards serve the integrity of the rolls and the right to vote at once.

How to Think About This

Ask how a collegial body decides. The same question applies to the Election Commission, the RBI’s Monetary Policy Committee (whose minutes and votes are published), the GST Council (which votes with weighted shares), SEBI’s board and the Supreme Court’s own Benches. Where votes and dissents are recorded, disagreement strengthens trust; where they are hidden, it looks like a crisis when it surfaces. In an answer, compare the ECI with bodies that publish their deliberations.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• The report (IE, 23 September): ECs Sandhu and Joshi objected on record 14 times in ten months during the SIR.
• The ECI’s response (23 September): all decisions, including the SIR, were unanimous decisions of the full Commission; differing views are a normal part of deliberation.
• The law: Article 324; ECs removable only on the CEC’s recommendation (Article 324(5)); Seshan (1995): the Commission decides as a body.
• The editorial’s asks: CEC to answer point by point; Supreme Court to examine; restore Form 6; restore State access to the voter database.
• The exam lesson: collective, recorded decision-making and procedural safeguards sustain trust in a constitutional body.

Sources: The Indian Express, Election Commission of India

Source: When Commissioners Disagree: Collective Functioning of the ECI and the SIR — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis