NEW DELHI: According to an Indian Express report, two of the three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, have raised formal objections at least 14 times over ten months regarding decisions made in the Commission’s name. On Wednesday, a Supreme Court bench was divided on the challenge surrounding the law that governs their appointment and has requested the Chief Justice to form a five-judge bench.
Importance of the Issue
This dispute highlights three critical questions concerning the electoral authority: who makes decisions, who manages the voter database, and who selects the leadership.
What would Seshan do if faced with SIR? Below are ten key questions related to the controversy.
1. What specific issues did the two ECs raise?
The objections pertain to fundamental aspects of electoral administration. The Express investigation revealed that Sandhu and Joshi questioned changes to Form 6 for voter registration, procedures for deleting and restoring names during Special Intensive Revision (SIR), appeals regarding restored voters, and access to and control over the electoral roll database. They also flagged communications supposedly issued in the Commission’s name without necessary approval. The EC contends that these objections reflect input for decision-making and that differing perspectives can be expected in a multi-member body, with final decisions having approval from all commissioners.
2. Is it permissible for ECs to disagree?
Yes, disagreement is anticipated. Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, states that Commission business should aim for unanimity “as far as possible.” However, it also addresses scenarios where consensus fails: decisions are made based on the majority opinion. Therefore, with three commissioners, a 2-1 vote resolves the issue. The more pressing question here is: what if two commissioners believe an action required full Commission approval?
3. Is the Chief Election Commissioner the superior authority?
While the CEC holds a significant institutional role, the other two commissioners should not be seen merely as subordinates. This issue was notably contested during T N Seshan’s tenure, where the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of a multi-member Election Commission and invalidated the notion that other commissioners were mere figureheads. The 2023 legislation further emphasizes this collegial structure, allowing for collective decision-making and majority resolutions on substantive matters. Therefore, being ‘Chief’ does not grant the CEC overarching authority to cast the deciding vote.
4. Why is this disagreement such a significant issue?
The reported conflict extends beyond typical decisions of the Commission. Some communications raised concerns regarding who authorized actions in the Commission’s name. In April, for instance, Sandhu and Joshi noted communications issued without proper Commission sanction, suggesting a deeper issue of operational authority and procedural adherence.
5. Have Election Commissioners disagreed in the past?
Yes, prior dissent has occurred. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa sided with the minority in five Model Code of Conduct cases against PM Modi and now-former BJP president Amit Shah, resulting in decisions reached 2-1. However, the current instance is distinct as Sandhu and Joshi’s concerns involve the administration of electoral rolls and the authorization of decisions rather than simply being outvoted.
6. Should dissent within the EC be made public?
This remains a politically and institutionally contentious issue. The argument for confidentiality underscores the necessity for open internal dialogue within collegial bodies, while transparency could illustrate that controversial decisions were thoroughly considered. The RBI and Supreme Court operate with public records of dissenting opinions; should the Election Commission similarly adopt this practice to reflect its majority decision-making framework?
7. How does the electoral roll software relate to the controversy?
The management of elections now involves significant software elements. Legally, statutory officials like Electoral Registration Officers maintain electoral rolls, yet modern systems rely on interconnected digital platforms. Reports indicate that Sandhu and Joshi questioned the growing centralization of access to the electoral database, as exemplified by a case where 97 eligible Goa voters could not be reinstated due to software limitations. The EC asserts its digital operations are secure and that local officials retain their legal authority.
8. Why does SIR amplify the stakes?
The answer is straightforward: scale. The Election Commission’s SIR affects electoral rolls across various states and Union Territories, resulting in over 13 crore names being removed from draft rolls in 30 jurisdictions. While exclusions might be temporary, the impact on voter participation must be taken seriously. Addressing discrepancies swiftly is vital for any functioning democracy. The SIR exercise in Delhi has issued notices to over 33 lakh voters regarding “logical discrepancies,” raising concerns about the possibility of mechanistic issuance.
9. What is the controversy surrounding the appointment of election commissioners?
On September 23, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma diverged on the selection method for election commissioners. Justice Sharma supported a referral to a five-judge Constitution Bench, while Justice Datta highlighted the importance of ensuring both the independence and appearance of independence of the EC. The Chief Justice will now decide on the appropriate bench to address this issue.
10. What broader questions does the EC controversy raise?
The discussion transcends the simple health of disagreement within the Election Commission, as designed to accommodate differing opinions. The essential issue is whether there are clear guidelines on how to manage disagreements, particularly regarding the sanctity of electoral rolls. Every eligible voter must retain their right to participate in any election.
