The ECI has faced internal disputes over its structure, authority, neutrality and decision-making.
From T N Seshan to Ashok Lavasa and Arun Goel, past episodes have highlighted different forms of disagreement within the poll panel.
The latest SIR controversy has renewed questions over how dissent is recorded and how the three-member Commission reaches formal decisions.
Fresh questions over the Election Commission of India’s internal functioning have triggered an opposition attack after a report said election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to key decisions, including those related to the Special Intensive Revision process. Opposition parties then sought Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and Supreme Court intervention, while also questioning the integrity of the poll process. The Election Commission rejected the charge of one-sided decision-making and said internal differences are part of its deliberations, but it maintained that its formal decisions are unanimous. The Bharatiya Janata Party distanced itself from the controversy.
The dispute has again drawn attention to an old question: how power, dissent and neutrality work inside a three-member poll panel. From the T N Seshan era to later disputes involving Navin Chawla, Ashok Lavasa and Arun Goel, the Commission has repeatedly faced scrutiny over internal differences and the limits of the chief election commissioner’s authority.
Seshan Era Clash
The structure of the Commission was once the dispute itself. For years, the Election Commission had largely functioned as a one-member body, with the chief election commissioner effectively exercising the institution’s authority.
That changed briefly in October 1989, when two election commissioners were appointed. The arrangement lasted only until January 1990. The Commission then returned to a single-member structure until 1993, when the Narasimha Rao government appointed M S Gill and G V G Krishnamurthy as election commissioners.
Seshan challenged that move, arguing that the addition of two commissioners diluted the chief election commissioner’s authority. The Supreme Court rejected his challenge in July 1995. It held that Article 324 of the Constitution permits a multi-member Election Commission and that the other commissioners were not merely advisers to the CEC but full members of the Commission with a role in decision-making.
The friction continued. In 1995, while Seshan was in the US, he asked a deputy election commissioner to take "current charge" of the Commission. Gill and Krishnamurthy objected, arguing that Seshan could not bypass the other constitutional commissioners by handing charge to a subordinate officer.
That episode mattered beyond the immediate clash. Along with the Supreme Court ruling, it helped fix the principle that the CEC is the chairman of the body, but the Election Commission remains a collective institution in which the other commissioners have a meaningful role.
Chawla And Lavasa
Later disputes shifted the focus from authority to neutrality. In January 2009, Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami recommended the removal of election commissioner Navin Chawla after complaints that Chawla had acted in a partisan manner.
Chawla rejected the allegations and refused to resign. The government opposed Gopalaswami’s recommendation. President Pratibha Patil then rejected it on the advice of the government, and Chawla stayed in office before succeeding Gopalaswami as CEC in April 2009.
A decade later, dissent took a different form. During the 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign, election commissioner Ashok Lavasa disagreed with the majority of the Commission in several cases involving alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct.
Those decisions were taken by a 2-1 majority, with Lavasa recording a different view in several cases. Under the 1991 law, the Commission is required to decide matters unanimously "as far as possible". Where members disagree, the majority view prevails.
Lavasa’s objection was narrower and procedural. He objected to his dissenting views not being reflected in the Commission’s final orders. He later recused himself from meetings dealing with Model Code complaints, saying that his views were not being adequately recorded.
The Commission then decided that the views of all members could be entered into the proceedings, but that a minority dissent would not necessarily appear in the final public order. That approach has become important again in the current controversy.
Goel Resignation
Speculation over internal differences resurfaced in March 2024. Election commissioner Arun Goel resigned abruptly just days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha election schedule.
His exit temporarily left CEC Rajiv Kumar as the Commission’s sole member. Reports later pointed to possible differences between Goel and Kumar, including during a visit to West Bengal, though the precise reason for Goel’s resignation was never publicly established. Kumar said Goel had cited personal reasons and that his personal space should be respected.
Kumar also said at the time that disagreement was not unusual in a multi-member commission and that dissent was part of the institution’s functioning.
September 2026 Position
On September 23-24, 2026, the Commission stated that internal notes, observations, technical suggestions and differing views are part of normal deliberations and should not be treated as final rulings. The Indian Express reported that the body also stood by the view that its formal orders over the previous year, including those on the Special Intensive Revision, had the backing of all three commissioners.
The poll body maintained that all formal decisions over the past year were unanimous and approved by all three commissioners. It stated that this included decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision. In a separate report, The Indian Express said the objections also touched electoral roll control systems.
The Commission’s September 2026 position is materially in line with its May 21, 2019 approach during the Lavasa episode. It has not announced any change in practice. Its stand is that objections and differing views may appear in the file or internal proceedings, but consensus was reached before final orders were issued and the orders on record remained unanimous.
