Election Commission of India: Autonomy under Scrutiny?

Key Highlights

1. Objections were reportedly raised at least 14 times in ten months by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against decisions attributed to CEC Gyanesh Kumar, according to an Indian Express investigation.
2. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including a Form 6 declaration and centralised voter data, is at the centre of the dispute.
3. The resignation or removal of the CEC has been demanded by opposition parties and civil society groups, and the suspension of the SIR has been sought over fears of wrongful deletions.
4. On October 5, records on the authorisation of the Form 6 declaration were sought by the Supreme Court, which indicated that decisions taken without unanimity or majority could be annulled.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional body that conducts elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of the President and Vice-President, has come under scrutiny over how its decisions are taken. Its credibility, it is widely held, rests not only on the conduct of polls but also on whether its decisions are seen as transparent, impartial and lawful.

“The controversy came to the fore after it was alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had acted without adequately involving the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.” According to an investigation published by The Indian Express, objections were raised by the two commissioners on at least 14 occasions over ten months. The issues cited included voter registration, deletion of names from electoral rolls, access to voter databases and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

About the Background

How was the Election Commission set up?

The ECI was established on January 25, 1950, under Article 324 of the Constitution, by which the superintendence, direction and control of elections are vested in the Commission.

For nearly four decades, the Commission was a single-member body headed by the CEC. No fixed number of Election Commissioners is prescribed by Article 324. The number can be determined by the President, subject to the applicable law, and the Commission has therefore moved between single-member and multi-member forms.

From one member to three

1989: Two posts of Election Commissioner were created through a government notification, and S.S. Dhanoa and V.S. Seigell were appointed on October 16, shortly before the ninth Lok Sabha elections. The move was made amid tensions between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the then CEC, R.V.S. Peri Sastri. According to former EC official S.K. Mendiratta, disagreements over the 1987 presidential election and concerns over the Commission's independence contributed to the decision.

1990: The notification was rescinded by the National Front government led by V.P. Singh, and the single-member structure was restored. A petition filed by Dhanoa against his removal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

1993: T.N. Seshan, appointed CEC on December 12, 1990, was known for asserting the Commission's authority. On October 1, 1993, the Commission was expanded again by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government, and M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Krishnamurthy were appointed Election Commissioners. The 1991 law was amended through an ordinance so that decisions would be taken unanimously wherever possible, with the majority view prevailing in case of disagreement.

1995: The changes were challenged by Seshan, who argued that the CEC's powers had been curtailed. His petition was dismissed on July 14, 1995, by a five-judge Constitution Bench, and the multi-member structure was upheld. The Commission has functioned as a three-member body since.

Why does collective decision-making matter?

The legal foundation of the present controversy is the principle that the ECI is a collective institution, and not an office controlled exclusively by the CEC.

In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991), caution was exercised by the Supreme Court against the concentration of the Commission's wide discretionary powers in one individual. The same reasoning was reflected in the Constitution Bench's ruling in the Seshan case, in which it was stressed that Election Commissioners must have a meaningful role, that they are not mere advisers, and that they cannot be treated as subordinates. Decision-making by unanimity or majority is also required under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

Such an arrangement is seen as an institutional safeguard. Differences of opinion are not, by themselves, evidence of wrongdoing, and dissent can strengthen decisions, since shortcomings may be exposed before they are implemented.

What is the current controversy about?

At the centre of the dispute are allegations of unilateral decisions during the SIR, an exercise meant to review and update voter lists.

According to the Indian Express investigation, several decisions on voter registration, deletion of names, access to electoral data and the implementation of SIR were objected to by Sandhu and Joshi. One objection reportedly related to a declaration added to Form 6, the form used by new voters to seek inclusion in the rolls. It was described as unauthorised, as the required legal amendment had allegedly not been made. Concerns were also reportedly raised over the centralisation of electoral-roll data, and over decisions being communicated in the Commission's name without their approval.

It has been maintained by the Commission that differing views are part of its decision-making. The resignation or removal of the CEC has been demanded by opposition parties and civil society groups, and protests have been held in Delhi and other cities.

A distinction must be drawn between allegations and findings. Disagreement within the Commission does not, by itself, establish that an election was manipulated or that the CEC acted unlawfully.

What is the Form 6 dispute?

The dispute relates to an additional declaration associated with Form 6 during the SIR. The position of the ECI is that the statutory form was not modified, and that a supplementary declaration was introduced as part of the documentation framework for intensive revision.

The legal question is whether such documentation could be prescribed under the authority recognised by the Supreme Court in its May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR. A degree of residual authority was recognised by the court, but it was made clear that this authority is not unlimited, and that any departure from the statutory framework must have a rational connection with the objectives of the exercise.

How the declaration was implemented on ECINet, the Commission's online platform, is also in question. If it was merely supplementary, it could fall within the Commission's administrative authority. A different test could apply if it was made a compulsory precondition for a Form 6 application.

On October 5, according to reported proceedings, records on the authorisation of the changes were sought by the Supreme Court, and it was indicated that decisions taken without the required unanimity or majority could be annulled. No finding of unlawfulness has been made merely by the seeking of these records.

Why is the SIR politically sensitive?

Who can vote is directly affected by the revision of electoral rolls. The removal of ineligible entries must therefore be balanced with the protection of every eligible citizen's right to register.

The purpose of SIR, according to the ECI, is to improve the accuracy of the rolls. Wrongful deletions have been feared by opposition parties, which have alleged that the exercise could influence electoral outcomes. Accusations of manipulating voter lists in favour of the ruling party have been rejected by the Commission and the BJP.

Is the EC funded by the Government?

A separate budget for the Commission's secretariat is maintained, and it is finalised through consultations with the Union Finance Ministry. According to the EC, its budget recommendations are generally accepted by the Ministry. Budgetary arrangements and institutional independence are, however, separate matters.

What Next: independence matched by accountability

The controversy is not merely a dispute between the CEC and two Election Commissioners. It concerns the relationship between constitutional authority, collective decision-making and public trust.

The independence needed to conduct elections without political interference must be retained by the ECI. But independence cannot be taken to mean that decisions are exempt from legal scrutiny or that statutory procedures may be bypassed.

Ultimately, the credibility of the EC rests on two principles: independence must be exercised, and it must be demonstrated through transparent, lawful and collective decision-making.