TN Seshan’s 1990s legal battle over the Election Commission’s structure has resurfaced amid reported dissent over the SIR exercise.
The Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling established that the CEC could not simply override the other Election Commissioners.
The current law provides for unanimous decision-making as far as possible, with disagreements settled by majority.
Former Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan confrontation with the government over the appointment of Election Commissioners in 1990s is back in conversation amid a fresh controversy over differences within the three-member Election Commission.
His words "I eat politicians for breakfast" are being circulated on the social media as a symbol of courage to stand up against the centre's decision.
This comes after a September 23 report by The Indian Express said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months on decisions and orders linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and other matters.
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that such differences indicate a breakdown in decision-making. It has maintained that observations and disagreements during deliberations are part of the institutional process and that its final decisions in recent months, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous.
The present debate has nevertheless revived questions that were at the centre of Seshan’s legal battle with the government in the 1990s.
What Happened During TN Seshan’s Tenure?
Seshan served as Chief Election Commissioner from December 1990 to December 1996 and was known for asserting the powers of the Election Commission and enforcing the Model Code of Conduct.
In October 1993, the government expanded the Commission from a single-member body to a three-member institution by appointing MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners.
Seshan challenged the appointments in the Supreme Court, arguing that the move was intended to dilute the authority of the CEC. The government, however, maintained that the Constitution permitted the Election Commission to function as a multi-member body.
The disagreement soon became an open conflict between Seshan and the newly appointed commissioners. The Supreme Court's eventual judgment referred to “unpleasant exchanges” between Seshan and Krishnamurthy during a meeting in October 1993.
Gill also spoke publicly about the strained relationship.
“The CEC, however, acted as if we don't exist,” Gill said in 1995.
Supreme Court's Verdict
The constitutional dispute culminated in a Constitution Bench judgment on July 14, 1995.
The Supreme Court upheld the multi-member structure of the Election Commission as well as the appointments of Gill and Krishnamurthy. It also rejected the contention that the CEC's opinion should automatically carry greater weight than that of the other commissioners.
“If the CEC is considered to be a superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental,” the court observed.
The court also commented on the personal differences between the commissioners.
“It is a pity they did not try to work as a team,” it said, adding that “suspicion and distrust got the better of them”.
The judgment therefore established a key principle for the functioning of a multi-member Election Commission: the CEC chairs the body but cannot simply overrule the other Election Commissioners.
Article 324 of the Constitution gives the Election Commission “superintendence, direction and control” over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President.
The present framework for the Commission's internal functioning is contained in the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Section 18 states that the Commission should conduct its business unanimously “as far as possible”. If the CEC and other Election Commissioners disagree, the matter is decided by the majority.
With three commissioners, each member has one vote. The CEC acts as the chairperson, but the law does not give the office a unilateral power to overrule the other two members.
Election Commission officials have said differences over matters before the poll panel can arise during deliberations. Where a commissioner disagrees with the majority, the dissent can be recorded on the file.
Ashok Lavasa’s Dissent In 2019
Seshan’s was not the last major dispute over dissent within the Commission.
During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa disagreed with the majority view on complaints alleging Model Code of Conduct violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.
While the majority gave Modi and Shah clean chits, Lavasa wanted his dissenting views recorded and included in the Commission's final orders.
Lavasa later wrote to then CEC Sunil Arora that his minority decisions were being “suppressed”.
“In the present circumstances, I am left with no option but to keep away from such proceedings,” Lavasa wrote.
Arora subsequently defended the existence of differing views within the Commission.
“The three members of ECI are not expected to be template or clones of each other,” he said, describing the dispute as “unsavoury and avoidable”.
The Commission later decided that the views of all members would be recorded in its proceedings, while the final order would reflect the majority position. Lavasa resigned from the Commission in 2020 after being appointed vice-president of the Asian Development Bank.
The SIR Row
The latest controversy concerns reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi on several matters connected with electoral rolls and the SIR exercise.
These reportedly include changes to Form 6, which is used for voter registration, the functioning of the Commission's IT infrastructure, electoral-roll data and issues involving the addition, deletion and restoration of voters.
Sandhu had also raised a concern before the Commission issued its SIR order on June 24, 2025. He called for safeguards to ensure that vulnerable sections of the population were not harassed during the exercise.
“Care should be taken that genuine voters/citizens, particularly old, sick, PwD (persons with disabilities), poor and other vulnerable groups do not feel harassed and are facilitated,” Sandhu wrote.
The Election Commission has maintained that this was an observation made during the drafting stage and that the eventual SIR order was approved unanimously.
EC's Clarification
The Commission has sought to draw a distinction between comments or objections raised during internal discussions and the decisions formally adopted by the body.
“Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights,” the ECI said.
It added: “Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution.”
The Commission said such inputs form part of the checks and balances within the institution before a final decision is taken. It also said that all decisions taken in recent months were the result of “unanimous decisions”.
