Internal Dissent vs Unanimous Decision-What ECI Row Over SIR Actually Means
                     Internal Dissent vs Unanimous Decision: What ECI Row Over SIR Actually Means
A controversy over the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) emerged after The Indian 
Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded 
objections at least 14 times over approximately ten months concerning electoral-roll 
administration, including matters connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Opposition 
leaders relied on the disclosures to question the Commission’s functioning, while BJP leaders 
argued that internal disagreement demonstrates institutional deliberation rather than illegality. 
The ECI responded on September 23, 2026 that differing views and observations are normal during 
deliberations and that its final decisions, including SIR, were unanimous decisions of the full 
Commission. The controversy therefore requires an important legal distinction between an internal 
objection during consideration of a proposal and a formal difference of opinion on a matter 
requiring a Commission decision. Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election 
Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 expressly 
recognises that Commissioners can disagree: business should, as far as possible, be unanimous, 
but where opinions differ, the majority decides. Consequently, neither the existence of internal 
objections nor the ECI’s statement about unanimous final decisions necessarily disproves the 
other. The more significant legal question is whether particular actions challenged internally were 
merely draft or operational matters later approved by the Commission, or substantive Commission 
business implemented before obtaining the collective approval required by law.Read more at:
What Triggered the Election Commission Controversy?
The immediate controversy followed an investigation published by The Indian Express on September 23, 2026.
The report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had placed objections on record 
at least 14 times during approximately ten months concerning various aspects of electoral-roll 
administration. The reported issues included registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, 
Form 6, appeals concerning restoration of voters, control and security of electoral-roll data, IT systems and 
allocation of responsibilities.
The report was politically significant because the Election Commission presently functions as a three-member 
body comprising the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners.
If both Election Commissioners held a contrary view on a matter requiring a decision of the Commission, their 
combined position would constitute the majority.
But that proposition does not establish that every objection contained in an internal note amounted to such a 
formal difference of opinion.
ECI Responds: Final Decisions, Including SIR, Were Unanimous
The Election Commission issued a detailed statement on September 23, 2026.
It said written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks are standard practices within a 
multi-member constitutional institution and are intended to promote transparency, legal compliance and 
operational rigour.
The Commission further stated:
“Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution.”
Most importantly, the ECI said that its decisions during the preceding year, including electoral-roll revisions and 
SIR, were the outcome of unanimous decisions of the full Commission.
According to the ECI, highlighting particular internal notes from a ten-month period without considering 
subsequent approvals, decisions and instructions presents only part of the institutional record.
This creates the central issue:
Can Commissioners have recorded objections while the Commission’s eventual decision was nevertheless 
unanimous?
Legally and institutionally, the answer can be yes.
But that answer depends upon what each objection concerned and what happened after it was raised.
Internal Dissent and Final Unanimity Are Not Necessarily Contradictory
Much of the political and social-media debate has treated two propositions as mutually exclusive:
Proposition 1: Two Election Commissioners raised objections.
Proposition 2: The final decisions of the Election Commission were unanimous.
Both propositions can potentially be true.
Consider a three-member body considering a proposal.
At the initial stage, Member A proposes a course of action. Members B and C object to particular 
features. The proposal is reconsidered or modified. After further discussion, all three 
members approve the revised proposal.
There has been genuine internal disagreement.
There has also been a unanimous final decision.
The existence of the earlier objection does not make the final unanimity fictitious. Equally, the 
eventual unanimous decision does not mean the earlier objection never existed.
This distinction becomes much more important, however, where the allegation is not merely that 
Commissioners disagreed with a draft proposal but that a substantive action had already 
been undertaken without their knowledge or approval.
Three Different Forms of ‘Dissent’ Need to Be Separated
The expression “dissent” has been used broadly in political discussion surrounding the controversy. Legally, at least 
three situations need to be distinguished.
1. Suggestions or Objections During Drafting
A Commissioner may question wording, procedure, technology or implementation while a proposal is still being 
formulated.
The proposal may then be changed and eventually approved unanimously.
This is ordinary institutional deliberation and is broadly consistent with the explanation offered by the ECI.
2. Objection to an Administrative or Operational Action
A Commissioner may object that an officer, IT division or administrative authority has undertaken something that should 
have been placed before the Commission.
The issue here is not necessarily whether the Commissioner ultimately opposed the underlying policy.
The question instead becomes whether the particular action required prior approval of the Commission and, if so, 
whether such approval existed when the action was taken.
3. Formal Difference of Opinion on Commission Business
The third situation is legally the clearest.
If a matter requiring a Commission decision is placed before all three Commissioners and they differ in opinion, Section 
18 provides the mechanism for resolving that disagreement.
It is the majority, not the Chief Election Commissioner acting alone, that determines the matter.
Conflating these three situations can produce misleading conclusions in either direction.
What Section 18 of the 2023 Act Actually Provides
The legal framework is particularly important.
Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions 
of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 deals with disposal of the Election Commission’s business.
Section 18(1) provides that the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for 
transaction of its business and allocation of business among the CEC and Election Commissioners.
Section 18(2) then provides that:
“All business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously…”
But Parliament expressly contemplated that unanimity may sometimes be impossible.
The same provision states that if the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ in 
opinion on any matter, that matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.
This statutory provision materially changes how the present controversy should be analysed.
Dissent within the Election Commission is not inherently unlawful.
The statute itself anticipates disagreement.
Two Commissioners Can Outvote the CEC
The majority rule has another important consequence.
The Chief Election Commissioner is the Chairman of the Election Commission, but that does not mean that the 
CEC possesses an additional or casting vote enabling him to override both Election Commissioners.
In a three-member Commission:
If all three agree, the decision is unanimous.
If the CEC and one Election Commissioner agree while the other disagrees, the decision is 2-1.
If both Election Commissioners agree and the CEC disagrees, the two Election Commissioners constitute the 
majority.
Accordingly, if Sandhu and Joshi had both formally opposed the same substantive matter placed before the 
Commission, their combined opinion would ordinarily constitute the majority under Section 18.
The critical factual question is therefore whether the reported internal objections represented such a joint 
difference of opinion on a matter placed before the Commission, or whether they concerned draft-stage, 
administrative or implementation issues that were subsequently resolved.
The publicly available material does not justify treating every reported objection as automatically equivalent to 
a 2-1 Commission decision.
Supreme Court: Election Commissioners Are Not Mere Advisers to CEC
The collective character of the Commission is also supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence.
In the litigation concerning the appointment and independence of Election Commissioners, the Supreme Court 
referred to the constitutional position that Election Commissioners cannot be reduced to mere advisers to 
the CEC.
Discussing the earlier Constitution Bench ruling in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed 
that the Election Commissioners have a crucial constitutional role and that the constitutional structure 
does not make the CEC the final authority on every matter merely because he is Chairman.
The legal structure therefore combines two principles:
institutional leadership by the CEC, and
collective decision-making by the Commission.
Section 18 gives practical statutory effect to the second principle by prescribing unanimity where possible and 
majority decision where Commissioners differ.
Read more at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/internal-dissent-unanimous-decision-eci-row-sir-means.html
Copyright © Taxguru.in