"
/>
NEW DELHI: A new political uproar is emerging around the Election Commission due to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) initiative, as the opposition calls for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This follows a report from The Indian Express detailing disagreements within the commission regarding the SIR exercise.
According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi expressed objections at least 14 times over 10 months concerning decisions related to voter deletions and electoral roll data. This report has reignited an ongoing debate in the commission’s history about what transpires when its members disagree about exercising their powers.
Historically, two significant instances have highlighted how such disagreements can escalate into public and judicial matters. In the 1990s, Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan contested the establishment of a multi-member Election Commission, while in 2019, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa publicly dissented regarding complaints about Model Code of Conduct violations by senior political figures.
When Seshan challenged other Election Commissioners
TN Seshan became Chief Election Commissioner in December 1990 and was recognized for his rigorous enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and the assertion of the Election Commission’s constitutional powers. In October 1993, the commission’s structure changed when the government moved to create a three-member body.
On October 1, 1993, an ordinance was promulgated by the President, establishing two Election Commissioners alongside the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). On the same day, MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy were appointed as Election Commissioners. Seshan contested this change in the Supreme Court, claiming these appointments were meant to undermine his authority and “marginalize” him. The government argued that the Constitution allowed for a multi-member Election Commission.
The dispute soon transformed into a public spectacle, with the Supreme Court documenting “unpleasant exchanges” between Seshan and Krishnamurthy during a meeting in October 1993, noting mutual accusations between the commissioners. Gill later spoke publicly about their strained dynamics, recounting attempts to communicate with Seshan following the new appointments, famously saying in 1995, “The CEC, however, acted as if we don’t exist.”
On October 26, 1993, Seshan approached the Supreme Court challenging the ordinance and appointments, raising a crucial constitutional question: Could the Chief Election Commissioner exercise overriding authority in the newly expanded commission, or should all three members work collectively?
1995 verdict: CEC not above other ECs
This constitutional conflict concluded with a Supreme Court ruling on July 14, 1995, which upheld the law allowing for a multi-member Election Commission and the appointments of Gill and Krishnamurthy. The court dismissed the idea that the CEC’s opinion would always outweigh the views of the other Election Commissioners. It emphasized, “If the CEC is considered superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental.” The verdict also touched upon the personal differences that influenced the legal disputes, expressing disappointment that the commissioners had not worked together effectively.
2019: Lavasa’s dissent
More than twenty years later, a similar internal disagreement arose during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The commission then comprised CEC Sunil Arora and Election Commissioners Ashok Lavasa and Sushil Chandra. Lavasa disagreed with the majority’s decisions regarding complaints alleging Model Code violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.
While the majority acquitted PM Modi and Shah in these complaints, Lavasa insisted that his dissent should be documented and included in the commission’s final orders. This dispute evolved into a contention over whether minority opinions should be part of the commission’s conclusive decisions.
Lavasa eventually indicated to Arora that he would refrain from participating in proceedings related to MCC complaints, claiming that his minority opinions were being “suppressed” in violation of standard practices followed by multi-member statutory bodies. He stated, “In the present circumstances, I am left with no option but to keep away from such proceedings.”
‘We are not clones’: Sunil Arora
The disagreement gained public attention during the election campaign, prompting a response from CEC Sunil Arora. On May 18, 2019, Arora articulated that the three members of the Commission do not need to agree on every issue, remarking that they were not expected to be “templates or clones” of one another and describing the situation as “unsavoury and avoidable.” He acknowledged that differences of opinion had previously existed within the Commission.
The full Commission later had a discussion regarding how dissenting opinions should be documented. Ultimately, Lavasa’s request for minority views to be included in the final MCC orders was declined. Instead, they agreed that all members’ perspectives would be recorded in the proceedings, with only the majority decision reflected in the final order.
Lavasa resigns before becoming CEC
On August 18, 2020, Lavasa resigned as Election Commissioner after being appointed vice president of the Asian Development Bank. He joined the Election Commission in January 2018 and had over two years left in his term, also being next in line for the position of Chief Election Commissioner. The Election Commission formally bid farewell to Lavasa later that month, with Arora stating that the ECI’s loss was the Asian Development Bank’s gain.
