UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 26 September 2026

Election Commission Latest News

• Recent reports of differing views among Election Commissioners have renewed attention on the decision-making process, voting mechanism and role of dissent within the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Election Commission of India: Constitutional Framework

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution.
• Article 324 vests the ECI with the “superintendence, direction and control” of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President.
• The Constitution provides for a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and such number of other Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President may determine, subject to legislation.
• The ECI was permanently expanded from a single-member body to a three-member commission in 1993, comprising the CEC and two Election Commissioners.

How Does the Election Commission Take Decisions?

• The decision-making process is currently governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
• Under Section 17, the business of the Commission is conducted according to the provisions of the Act.
• Section 18 provides that:
  • The Commission should, as far as possible, conduct its business unanimously. 
  • If the members differ in their opinions, the matter is decided by majority. 
  • Since the Commission has three members, two members can decide a matter when unanimity is not achieved. 
  • The CEC chairs the Commission, but all three members have one vote each. 
• Thus, the CEC does not possess a casting vote that can override the other Commissioners.

Judicial Clarification on Equality of Commissioners

• The principle of equality among the three members was clarified by the Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995).
• Then CEC T.N. Seshan had challenged the appointment of two Election Commissioners, M.S. Gill and G.V. Krishnamurthy.
• The Supreme Court upheld the appointments and established that the three members of the Commission have equal status in decision-making.
• This is important for understanding the institutional structure of the ECI: although the CEC is the chairperson, the Commission functions as a multi-member body rather than a hierarchy in which the CEC has greater voting power.

Dissent Within the Election Commission

• Differences of opinion within the ECI are not unprecedented.
• T.N. Seshan and Other Commissioners
  • The period following the expansion of the Commission saw disagreements between T.N. Seshan and Commissioners M.S. Gill and G.V. Krishnamurthy, eventually leading to litigation before the Supreme Court.
• N. Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla
  • In 2009, CEC N. Gopalaswami wrote to the President seeking the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla, citing concerns over his political neutrality.
  • The request was not acted upon, and Chawla subsequently became Chief Election Commissioner.
• Ashok Lavasa's Dissent
  • In 2019, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa disagreed with the majority view concerning complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah relating to alleged Model Code of Conduct violations.
  • Lavasa recorded dissent notes and also objected that his views were not being reflected in the Commission's final orders. He resigned from the ECI in 2020.

Dissent Notes and Observations

• A distinction exists between an observation recorded during deliberations and a final dissent against a Commission decision.
• Election Commission officials have stated that differing views on electoral or administrative matters are a normal part of internal deliberation. Commissioners can record their disagreement on files, while the final decision can still be unanimous or based on majority opinion.
• For instance, before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 2025, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu recorded an observation emphasising that vulnerable groups such as elderly persons, persons with disabilities and poor citizens should not face harassment.
• According to the ECI, such observations formed part of the internal deliberative process, while the final SIR decision was unanimous.

Why Institutional Dissent Matters

• Dissent within a constitutional body can function as an internal check and balance. 
• Recording alternative views creates an institutional record of deliberation and can help identify administrative, legal or operational concerns before a final decision is taken.
• At the same time, the statutory framework gives the Commission a clear mechanism for resolving disagreements through majority decision-making.
• This balances two requirements: collective decision-making and individual institutional accountability.

Source: IE