The recent controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India has generated intense political debate. However, the September 26 explainer published by The Indian Express provides an important perspective that deserves greater attention: differences of opinion within the Election Commission are not unprecedented.
The Indian Express examined earlier instances involving prominent Election Commissioners such as T N Seshan, N Gopalaswami and Ashok Lavasa, and explained that members of the Commission have differed on important issues in the past.
The Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body, and disagreement between its members is therefore not, by itself, evidence of institutional wrongdoing.
This historical context is particularly relevant to the present controversy.
The recent reports about objections recorded by Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have been presented by some political leaders as evidence of serious wrongdoing by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. But an objection or difference of opinion within an institution should not automatically be converted into an allegation of electoral manipulation or personal misconduct.
The legal framework itself recognises the possibility of disagreement. The Commission functions collectively, with decisions generally sought to be reached by consensus and, where consensus is not possible, according to the applicable decision-making process.
The Election Commission has also stated that the decisions relating to the SIR process were taken unanimously. This is significant because it addresses the suggestion that the Chief Election Commissioner was acting entirely on his own.
Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between internal discussion and proven wrongdoing.
The fact that two Commissioners expressed objections to certain proposals or decisions does not establish that the Chief Election Commissioner personally committed any wrongdoing. Nor does it establish that elections were manipulated. Such serious allegations require independent, verifiable evidence.
The September 26 Indian Express explainer is particularly relevant because it reminds readers that disagreements within the Election Commission have occurred under earlier Commissioners as well.
The present disagreement therefore needs to be understood within the broader institutional history of the Commission rather than automatically treated as proof of institutional failure.
The Election Commission is one of India’s key constitutional institutions. Its decisions can and should be scrutinised, but scrutiny is different from accusation. Until concrete evidence establishes personal wrongdoing or deliberate electoral manipulation, it would be premature to reach such conclusions.
A healthy democracy requires both institutional accountability and evidence-based public debate. Differences of opinion are part of institutional functioning. They should be examined seriously, but they should not, without further evidence, be converted into allegations of misconduct.
Harikumar Menon
Vice President
Democratic Social Justice Party (DSJP)
State of Keralam
