Election Commission Says Differing Opinions Are Normal, Final Decisions Unanimous

Election Commission Says Differing Opinions Are Normal, Final Decisions Unanimous
Anjali Singh
Spread the love

The Election Commission of India has rejected suggestions that reported differences among its three members indicate a breakdown in the functioning of the poll panel.

The clarification came after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections concerning several decisions taken during the Commission’s work, particularly those associated with electoral-roll revision and the Special Intensive Revision.

According to the ECI, however, disagreement during deliberations should not be interpreted as institutional paralysis or a failure of collective decision-making.

The Commission said its members may have individual views, observations or suggestions before a matter is finalised. Such exchanges, it said, are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member constitutional institution. The ECI further maintained that its final decisions during the period in question were unanimous.

The clarification is particularly relevant because the Election Commission operates as a multi-member body. Its official website lists Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as Election Commissioners.

Gyanesh Kumar assumed charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025. Before becoming CEC, he had served as an Election Commissioner since March 2024.

The current controversy began with reports concerning internal communications among the commissioners. One major report said Sandhu and Joshi had objected to various steps taken by the Commission over a 10-month period.

The objections reportedly included issues surrounding electoral-roll databases, voter registration, deletions and Form 6.

The Election Commission’s response does not deny that members may raise concerns during deliberations. Instead, it focuses on the distinction between an individual observation and a final Commission decision.

This distinction is important for understanding the controversy.

Constitutional and statutory bodies often involve deliberation before a final decision is made. Members can raise questions, suggest changes or express reservations before the institution adopts a position. The existence of such discussions does not necessarily mean that the final decision reflects a divided institution.

The ECI has therefore argued that reports focusing on individual objections should be understood within the broader decision-making process.

The controversy has nevertheless generated political and public demands for greater transparency. Some political leaders have called on the Commission to explain the reported differences more clearly, particularly because the issues involve electoral rolls.

On September 26, three BJP allies — Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), Telugu Desam Party and Rashtriya Lok Morcha — also called for clarification from the Election Commission. Their stated concern was that questions surrounding the electoral process should be addressed in order to maintain public confidence.

The development illustrates how the controversy has moved beyond opposition criticism and into a wider public discussion about institutional transparency.

The ECI has also defended its technological systems, saying its digital platforms operate under security protocols designed to protect electoral data from unauthorised manipulation.

Ultimately, the current debate involves two different aspects of the Commission’s functioning: the existence of internal deliberations and the legitimacy of the final decisions adopted by the institution.

The Election Commission has made its position clear that differences during discussion are normal and that final decisions were unanimous. Further scrutiny will focus on the underlying records, procedures and explanations concerning specific disputed decisions.

Journalist Details

Anjali Singh