Rift, Dissent and More: The Many Election Commission Controversies Over the Years

New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has long been at the centre of debates over electoral independence, institutional powers and the way decisions are taken within the constitutional body. While the latest controversy involves recorded disagreements among Election Commissioners over electoral-roll processes and internal decision-making, it is not the first time differences inside the poll panel have become public.

The Election Commission became a multi-member body in 1989, briefly reverted to a single-member body in 1990 and was made multi-member again in 1993. Since then, disagreements involving Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs) have periodically triggered wider political and legal debates.

The 1989-90 experiment with a multi-member EC

The first major episode dates back to 1989, when two Election Commissioners, S S Dhanoa and V S Seigell, were appointed alongside CEC R V S Peri Sastri.

The change was reportedly perceived by Sastri as diluting the authority of the CEC. The arrangement lasted only a few months: the appointments were rescinded in January 1990 and the Election Commission returned to its single-member format.

The multi-member structure returned in 1993, setting the stage for one of the most consequential institutional disputes in the Commission's history.

T N Seshan versus his fellow Election Commissioners

When T N Seshan was CEC, the Commission again became a three-member body with the appointment of M S Gill and G V G Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners.

A dispute subsequently developed over the powers of the CEC and the other commissioners. Seshan challenged the government's decision to make the Commission multi-member.

The Supreme Court, in 1995, held that the CEC and Election Commissioners were equal in status and decision-making power, with the CEC being “first among equals” rather than possessing unilateral authority over the other members.

The judgment became an important reference point for understanding how India's multi-member Election Commission should function.

Gopalaswami-Chawla dispute

Another major controversy emerged between CEC N Gopalaswami and Election Commissioner Navin Chawla.

In January 2009, Gopalaswami recommended Chawla's removal as Election Commissioner, alleging that he had acted in a partisan manner. The recommendation triggered a political and constitutional controversy just months before the 2009 Lok Sabha election.

The then United Progressive Alliance government rejected the recommendation. Chawla subsequently became Chief Election Commissioner after Gopalaswami's retirement in April 2009.

The episode raised questions about the limits of the CEC's authority to recommend the removal of another Election Commissioner and about how internal disagreements should be handled within the institution.

Ashok Lavasa's dissent during the 2019 Lok Sabha election

The next major public dispute involved Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa during the 2019 Lok Sabha election.

Lavasa disagreed with the majority of the Commission on several complaints alleging violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.

According to contemporary reports, Lavasa opposed five of the clean chits issued in complaints involving Modi and Shah.

In May 2019, Lavasa recused himself from meetings dealing with MCC complaints after his minority views were not being included in the Commission's final orders.

The full Commission subsequently decided by 2-1 that dissenting views could be recorded on file but would not be incorporated into the final orders.

Lavasa left the Election Commission in 2020, before completing his tenure, and later joined the Asian Development Bank.

The latest internal disagreement

The latest controversy became public in September 2026, after Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded objections to several decisions taken within the Commission.

According to The Indian Express, the two commissioners raised objections on 14 occasions over a 10-month period, involving issues including electoral-roll changes, addition and deletion of voter names, the functioning of digital systems and the manner in which decisions were communicated within the Commission.

The report said some of the objections concerned changes that the two commissioners said had been made without their knowledge.

The disagreements have emerged particularly against the backdrop of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has generated a wider public and political debate over voter-list verification and deletion.

The ECI, however, has said that differences of opinion among members of a multi-member constitutional body are normal and that its final decisions, including those concerning SIR, have been unanimous. The Commission has also argued that internal notes and objections are part of institutional checks and balances.

Appointment process becomes another flashpoint

The controversies have also brought attention to the process through which Election Commissioners are appointed.

In March 2023, the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India directed that, until Parliament enacted a law, appointments of the CEC and ECs should be made on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The court also urged consideration of a permanent ECI secretariat and greater institutional independence.

Parliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replacing the interim selection mechanism ordered by the Supreme Court.

The law has itself faced legal challenges, making the appointment process another continuing area of institutional debate.

What these controversies show

The episodes involving Seshan, Gopalaswami and Chawla, Lavasa and the present-day disagreements differ in their circumstances and legal context. They nevertheless illustrate a recurring question: how should disagreements inside a multi-member constitutional body be handled while preserving collective decision-making and institutional transparency?

The Supreme Court's 1995 ruling established that the CEC is first among equals, while the more recent disputes have again focused attention on how information, dissent and decision-making should operate among the three members of the Commission.

The latest episode therefore sits within a much longer history of debate over the Election Commission's structure, autonomy and internal functioning. Whether the current disagreements result in institutional changes will depend on subsequent proceedings, decisions by the Commission and any judicial or legislative developments.