Election Commission faces rift speculation; past controversies recalled

The Election Commission is facing controversy amid speculation of a rift between Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. After a news report said the two objected to key decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision, opposition parties sought Kumar's resignation and Supreme Court intervention. The ECI rejected charges of one-sided decision-making, calling all decisions unanimous. The BJP distanced itself. Similar disputes involved TN Seshan, Navin Chawla, Ashok Lavasa and Arun Goel.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 24 Sept 2026, 4:12 pm IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#election commission#gyanesh kumar#sir#institutional dissent#supreme court

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

Election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to certain key ECI decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) — Attributed in the source to an unnamed news report; not independently confirmed, and denied in effect by the ECI.
ECI rejected charges of one-sided decision-making, saying differences are part of deliberation but all decisions are unanimous — Attributed to the poll body in the source; consistent internally.
Supreme Court in July 1995 rejected TN Seshan's challenge, holding Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission — Specific date and legal reasoning appear in the source; presented as historical record.
President Pratibha Patil rejected CEC N Gopalaswami's January 2009 recommendation to remove Navin Chawla; Chawla became CEC in April 2009 — Dates and sequence appear in the source; no external verification possible.
Arun Goel resigned in March 2024 citing personal reasons, per CEC Rajiv Kumar; the precise reason was never publicly established — Attributed to Rajiv Kumar in the source, which also notes the reason remains unestablished.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This looks like an internal Election Commission matter, but its political value is far greater: it hands the opposition the narrative that its existing criticism of the SIR exercise is being echoed from inside the commission itself. That explains the immediate escalation to maximal demands — the CEC's resignation and Supreme Court intervention — while the ECI has pushed back, saying differences are part of deliberation and its decisions are unanimous. The BJP's decision to stay out is itself strategic: it keeps the row from becoming a party fight and lets a constitutional body answer for itself.

The opposition's target is not a single decision but the credibility of the SIR process, and through it, doubt about the electoral process as a whole.
The ECI's wording is carefully chosen — it does not deny disagreement outright, but insists final decisions are unanimous, protecting institutional cohesion.
The BJP's silence may be defensive or tactical: any intervention by the ruling party would strengthen the charge of government influence over the poll body.
The precedents cited — Seshan, Chawla, Lavasa, Goel — show internal friction at the ECI is not new, but it becomes a political weapon when it surfaces close to an electoral exercise.
In law, unanimity is required only "as far as possible" and the majority view prevails, so dissent does not invalidate decisions — the contest here is over legitimacy and trust, not legality.

What to watch — Watch whether the two commissioners say anything publicly, whether the Supreme Court takes up the issue, and whether the SIR timetable is adjusted in any way.

The story does not establish that a rift actually exists or which specific decisions were objected to — the account rests on a news report and speculation.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 10 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a three-member body headed by the Chief Election Commissioner. It is currently facing controversy amid speculation of a rift between CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, following a news report that the two had objected to certain key decisions, including those on the contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition parties demanded Kumar's resignation and Supreme Court intervention, while the ECI said differences are part of deliberation but all its decisions are unanimous. The episode echoes earlier disputes involving CEC TN Seshan, EC Navin Chawla, EC Ashok Lavasa and EC Arun Goel.

Key facts

Speculation of a rift involves CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi; the ECI rejected charges of one-sided decision-making.
The reported objections included decisions related to the contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process; the ruling BJP distanced itself from the controversy.
Two election commissioners were first appointed in October 1989, but the arrangement lasted only until January 1990, after which the ECI reverted to a single-member body until 1993.
In 1993 the Narasimha Rao government appointed MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as election commissioners; CEC TN Seshan challenged the move.
In July 1995 the Supreme Court rejected Seshan's challenge, holding Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission and that other commissioners are members with a role in decision-making, not mere advisers.
In January 2009 CEC N Gopalaswami recommended the removal of EC Navin Chawla; President Pratibha Patil rejected it on the government's advice, and Chawla became CEC in April 2009.
In the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign, EC Ashok Lavasa differed in several Model Code of Conduct cases decided by 2-1 majority, and recused himself from MCC meetings as his dissents were not recorded in final orders.
In March 2024 EC Arun Goel resigned abruptly days before the Lok Sabha poll schedule, briefly leaving CEC Rajiv Kumar as the commission's sole member.

Timeline

October 1989Two election commissioners appointed alongside the CEC for the first time.
January 1990The multi-member arrangement ends; ECI reverts to a single-member body.
1993Narasimha Rao government appoints MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as election commissioners; CEC TN Seshan challenges the move.
July 1995Supreme Court rejects Seshan's challenge, upholding a multi-member ECI under Article 324.
1995Seshan, while in the US, gives 'current charge' to a deputy election commissioner; Gill and Krishnamurthy object.
January 2009CEC N Gopalaswami recommends removal of EC Navin Chawla over partisanship complaints; Chawla refuses to resign.
April 2009President Pratibha Patil rejects the recommendation on government advice; Chawla succeeds Gopalaswami as CEC.
2019EC Ashok Lavasa dissents in Model Code of Conduct cases decided 2-1 and recuses himself from such meetings.
March 2024EC Arun Goel resigns abruptly days before the Lok Sabha election schedule announcement.
PresentReported objections by Sandhu and Joshi, including on SIR; Opposition seeks CEC Kumar's resignation and SC intervention; ECI says all decisions unanimous.

Who has a stake

Election Commission of India — Institutional credibility; has rejected charges of one-sided decision-making, saying differences are part of deliberation but decisions are unanimous.
CEC Gyanesh Kumar — Faces opposition demands for his resignation amid rift speculation.
ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — Reported to have objected to certain key ECI decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision.
Opposition parties — Have sought the CEC's resignation, Supreme Court intervention, and questioned the integrity of the poll process.
Bharatiya Janata Party (ruling party) — Distanced itself from the controversy.
Supreme Court — Sought to intervene by the Opposition; earlier settled the multi-member ECI question in July 1995.
Voters and the electoral process — Public confidence in electoral roll revision (SIR) and impartial conduct of elections.

Why it matters

The ECI's authority rests on perceived neutrality and collective decision-making, so any perception of internal discord or one-sided decisions directly affects trust in the electoral process. The current row over the Special Intensive Revision has drawn demands for the CEC's resignation and judicial intervention, reviving unsettled questions about how dissent inside a multi-member commission is recorded and disclosed.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Article 324 of the Constitution permits a multi-member Election Commission — upheld by the Supreme Court in July 1995 in the TN Seshan case.
Two election commissioners were first appointed in October 1989; the arrangement ended in January 1990 and was restored in 1993 (MS Gill, GVG Krishnamurthy).
Under the 1991 law, the ECI must decide unanimously 'as far as possible'; where members disagree, the majority view prevails.
January 2009: CEC N Gopalaswami's recommendation to remove EC Navin Chawla was rejected by President Pratibha Patil on the government's advice.
2019: EC Ashok Lavasa dissented in 2-1 Model Code of Conduct decisions and recused himself from MCC meetings.
March 2024: EC Arun Goel's resignation left CEC Rajiv Kumar temporarily the sole member of the ECI.

Mains framing

The present controversy over an alleged rift between CEC Gyanesh Kumar and ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, reportedly over decisions including the Special Intensive Revision, is best read against the ECI's institutional history. The commission moved from a one-member body to a three-member one (commissioners added in October 1989, withdrawn in January 1990, restored in 1993), a shift resisted by CEC TN Seshan until the Supreme Court held in July 1995 that Article 324 permits a multi-member commission and that commissioners are members with a genuine role in decision-making, not advisers. Subsequent episodes show that the unresolved issue is not whether dissent exists but how it is handled: the 1991 law requires unanimity 'as far as possible' with the majority prevailing, yet Ashok Lavasa's 2019 objection was that his dissent was not reflected in final orders, and the commission settled on recording all views in proceedings without necessarily publishing minority dissent. The Navin Chawla episode of 2009 showed the limits of the CEC's power to seek a commissioner's removal, and Arun Goel's abrupt 2024 resignation left reasons unexplained. The way forward, on the source's own logic, lies in treating the ECI as a collective body where internal differences are part of deliberation, with transparent recording of members' views so that perceptions of one-sided decision-making do not erode confidence in the electoral process.

Key terms

Election Commission of India (ECI): India's three-member poll panel, comprising the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR): The contentious electoral roll revision process; decisions relating to it were reportedly objected to by two Election Commissioners.
Article 324: Constitutional provision on the Election Commission; held by the Supreme Court in 1995 to permit a multi-member commission.
Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Norms governing conduct during election campaigns; Ashok Lavasa dissented in several MCC violation cases in 2019.
1991 law on the ECI: Requires the commission to decide unanimously 'as far as possible', with the majority view prevailing on disagreement.
'Current charge': Temporary charge of the commission that Seshan gave a deputy election commissioner in 1995, which the two ECs objected to.

Practice questions

Trace the evolution of the Election Commission of India from a single-member to a multi-member body and examine how judicial intervention shaped the relationship between the CEC and Election Commissioners.
"Dissent within a multi-member Election Commission is a feature, not a flaw." Discuss with reference to the Lavasa, Goel and current episodes.
How do controversies over internal decision-making in the ECI affect public confidence in the electoral process, and what institutional safeguards exist to address them?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyDTC retires last red AC low-floor bus in Delhi →

← All stories