Polity & Governance
Two Election Commissioners Reportedly Filed 14 Objections in 10 Months: Article 324, CEC Removal and What UPSC Asks
By Shivam Singh, Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
· Updated · 10 min read
WhatsApp Telegram
By Shivam Singh, Minimalist IAS Mentor Team · Last updated: October 14, 2026
Two of India's three Election Commissioners — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — objected to Election Commission decisions at least 14 times in 10 months, according to a report by The Indian Express, mostly over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The ECI's official line: every final decision, including on SIR, was unanimous.
Updated (October 2026): adds the Form 6 dispute now before the Supreme Court, and corrects the protest and citation details to what reports and the law reports support.
The ECI in 30 seconds
Three members, three equal votes, majority wins. Only the CEC is constitutionally protected in office (removed like a Supreme Court judge, Article 324(5)); other Commissioners go only on the CEC’s recommendation. SIR’s legality was upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2026; what is still open is how a three-member body handles dissent.
What Actually Happened?
To judge the row, start with what was reported and how the Commission answered.
1. The Objections
Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over roughly 10 months, says the report (Indian Express, September 2026).
The friction centred on SIR-related calls: changes to Form 6, and the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database.
Some decisions, the report says, were taken without their knowledge.
2. The ECI's Defence
The Commission says differing views are a normal part of internal deliberation and that every officer is free to raise concerns.
Its position: every final decision, SIR included, was unanimous.
3. The Political Fallout
Congress and Youth Congress workers protested in several cities, and effigies of CEC Gyanesh Kumar were burnt, according to news reports.
Opposition parties demanded his removal; petitions on the Commission's functioning reached the Supreme Court, which, reports say, declined interim relief against the CEC.
Example: Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi was reported as questioning elections on rolls from a legally flawed revision — a different question from the one the Supreme Court answered in May 2026.
4. Form 6 (October 2026)
Joshi objected in May to a new declaration added to Form 6 (the form for enrolling as a voter), arguing a statutory form cannot be changed without amending the rules. Form 6 sits in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed by the Centre under Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950.
In October a Supreme Court bench led by the Chief Justice said it had neither approved nor disapproved the revised Form 6: the revised form did not exist when the Bihar SIR case was heard.
The ECI says Form 6 itself was never changed. Both are reported positions, not rulings; the Court hears the matter later in October.
Untangling Two Different Questions
The headlines blur two questions that the law keeps apart.
Is SIR legal? — Upheld. Supreme Court, 27 May 2026: the Commission has the power under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950.
Was the Form 6 change within the Commission’s power, and does the Commission function properly as a 3-member body? — Unsettled. That's this story.
Example: It's the difference between asking "was the exam conducted fairly?" (courts checked) versus "did the exam committee members agree with each other while setting the paper?" (murky, and now public).
How Does the Election Commission Actually Decide Things?
A dissent only makes sense once you know how three Commissioners vote.
The ECI is a 3-member body: the CEC + 2 Election Commissioners.
Since T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), all three have equal voting power — the CEC has no veto or superior say.
Decisions are taken by majority and bind the whole Commission — even the member who disagreed.
A dissent note doesn't cancel a decision. It's filed internally — it doesn't have to be made public.
Example — this isn't new: In 2019, Commissioner Ashok Lavasa dissented on the EC's clean chits to PM Modi and Amit Shah over Model Code violations. The Commission, by majority, rejected his demand that dissent be recorded in its orders; notes stay in the records but not in the order. He later resigned to join the Asian Development Bank.
Why Can't the Public Just "Remove the CEC"?
If a Commissioner can dissent and be overruled, the next question is who can remove the head.
Removing the CEC needs the same process as removing a Supreme Court judge: a motion passed by special majority in both Houses of Parliament, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Removing an ordinary EC is simpler — it happens only on the CEC's own recommendation.
Net effect: Parliament — not protestors, not the dissenting Commissioners — holds the only real lever over the CEC. That's why this plays out as slogans, not procedure.
Point | CEC | Other Election Commissioners |
|---|---|---|
Removal | Like a Supreme Court judge — Parliament, special majority, proved misbehaviour or incapacity | Only on the CEC’s recommendation |
Service conditions | Cannot be varied to the CEC’s disadvantage after appointment (Article 324(5)) | No such constitutional protection |
Vote in the Commission | One vote; no casting vote or veto (Seshan, 1995) | One vote |
Déjà Vu — The ECI Has Been Here Before
Neither the dissent nor the removal question is new; a few defining moments shaped the Commission’s design.
The UPSC Lens — Why This Actually Matters
That history is why examiners treat this as more than a political spat: it is a live case study in the independence of constitutional bodies from executive influence — the same debate that surrounds the CBI and State consent, the CVC and the CAG.
GS2 angle: Tests whether you understand Article 324 as a design for insulation, not just a provision to memorise.
The real tension: Institutional stability (majority rule, "unanimous" public decisions) vs. transparency (should dissent be visible to voters?).
The deeper question: Can the judiciary fix an appointments process Parliament hasn't? Anoop Baranwal said yes; Parliament legislated a different answer in 2023.
Way Forward — In the Words of Those Who've Actually Ruled on This
The way out begins with what the Supreme Court and the Law Commission have already said. The strongest word comes from Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023):
"A pliable Election Commission, an unfair and biased overseer of the foundational exercise of adult franchise, which lies at the heart of democracy, who obliges the powers that be, perhaps offers the surest gateway to acquisition and retention of power."
The Court's own fix — an interim selection panel of the PM + Leader of Opposition + Chief Justice of India — held until Parliament replaced it with the 2023 Act, which dropped the CJI. The Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, which declined interim relief in 2024.
The Law Commission of India, 255th Report (2015), had already recommended a three-member collegium (PM, Leader of Opposition, CJI) for these appointments and equal removal protection for all Commissioners — eight years before Anoop Baranwal.
What's still missing: a clear, published rule on when a dissent note gets attached to a final order — instead of case-by-case discretion, as with Lavasa in 2019 and, reportedly, with Sandhu and Joshi now.
What Does the Election Commission Actually Do?
Behind the argument about votes lies the work the Commission exists to do.
Administrative: schedule, electoral rolls, Model Code of Conduct; polls to Parliament, State Legislatures, President and Vice-President.
Advisory: opinion to the President or Governor on disqualifying MPs and MLAs (Articles 103(2), 192(2)).
Quasi-judicial: registers parties, allots symbols, settles faction disputes (Symbols Order, 1968).
ECI at a Glance — Know Your Constitutional Body
Here is the whole body on one page.
Established: 25 January 1950 — now marked as National Voters' Day.
Composition: CEC + as many ECs as the President fixes. Briefly multi-member in 1989–90; permanently three members since 1 October 1993.
Appointment: President, on the advice of a Selection Committee — PM (Chair) + Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha) + one PM-nominated Union Cabinet Minister — under the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023.
Tenure and pay: 6 years or age 65, whichever is earlier; no reappointment. Pay equal to the Cabinet Secretary (2023 Act); earlier equal to a Supreme Court judge (1991 Act).
Removal: CEC — as a Supreme Court judge (Art. 324(5)). Other ECs — only on the CEC's recommendation.
ECI vs State Election Commission
One look-alike trips many candidates: the State Election Commission.
Point | Election Commission of India | State Election Commission |
|---|---|---|
Basis | Article 324 (Part XV) | Articles 243K (panchayats) and 243ZA (municipalities) |
Conducts | Elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, President, Vice-President | Panchayat and municipal elections |
Head appointed by | The President | The Governor |
Removal | CEC: like a Supreme Court judge | State Election Commissioner: like a High Court judge |
Mentor’s Note
Don’t write that the CEC has a superior vote. Since Seshan (1995) all three vote equally; the CEC has no casting vote or veto.
State the asymmetry. Only the CEC’s removal is constitutionally protected; other Commissioners go on the CEC’s recommendation. Independence questions turn on this.
Keep the questions apart. SIR’s legality is upheld; Form 6 and the dissent row are about power and process. UPSC has asked on the Commission in Prelims 2017 and Mains 2022, and on electoral reforms in Mains 2024.
Using the ECI in a Mains Answer
Introduction: Article 324 — a permanent constitutional body for superintendence, direction and control of elections.
Body: design (three equal votes, CEC removal, 2023 Act); tests (Lavasa 2019, Sandhu–Joshi 2026, Anoop Baranwal 2023, SIR, Form 6); way forward (a published rule on recording dissent, a balanced selection panel).
Conclusion: independence rests on process, not personalities.
Syllabus Mapping
GS Paper 2 — Polity & Governance (Constitutional Bodies, Election Commission, Article 324) · Prelims + Mains · relevant for State PSC/SSC/banking polity sections too.
Prelims Traps and 60-Second Revision
Prelims traps
The ECI has three members, not five (Prelims 2017).
The Election Commission, not the Home Ministry, fixes the election schedule.
Section 28 of the RP Act, 1950 gives rule-making power to the Central Government (after consulting the ECI), not to the ECI.
SIR does not decide citizenship: the Supreme Court said the Commission may examine citizenship while revising rolls, but this is not a final determination.
60-second revision
How many votes does the CEC have? One; no casting vote or veto (Seshan, 1995).
How are the CEC and an EC removed? CEC like a Supreme Court judge (Art. 324(5)); an EC only on the CEC’s recommendation.
Is SIR legal? The Supreme Court upheld it in May 2026 under Article 324 and Section 21(3), RP Act, 1950; the revised Form 6 has not been adjudicated.
Who frames Form 6? The Centre, in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, under Section 28 of the 1950 Act.
Who runs panchayat polls? State Election Commissions (Arts. 243K, 243ZA), not the ECI.
Related PYQs
UPSC CSE Prelims 2017
Consider the following statements:
1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognised political parties.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 3 only
Answer: (d) 3 only
Use: the trap on membership and the Commission’s quasi-judicial role.
UPSC CSE Mains 2022, GS Paper II (15 marks, 250 words)
Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.
UPSC CSE Mains 2024, GS Paper II (10 marks, 150 words)
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation – one election” principle.
See the detailed explanations: Prelims 2017 · Mains 2022 · Mains 2024 in the free PYQ vault, with year-wise analysis. Free to browse; free sign-up to download.
Target Prelims MCQs
With reference to the Election Commission of India, consider the following statements:
The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Any other Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The Chief Election Commissioner has a casting vote when the three Commissioners are divided.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Answer: (b) Only two
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Article 324(5) gives the CEC the same removal protection as a Supreme Court judge.
Statement 2 is correct: the second proviso to Article 324(5) makes the CEC’s recommendation necessary.
Statement 3 is incorrect: with three equal votes a majority always exists; the CEC has no casting vote or veto (Seshan, 1995).
Mains Practice Questions
The Election Commission’s collegial character is tested not by its unanimous decisions but by how it handles internal dissent. Discuss, with reference to constitutional safeguards for Commissioners’ independence. (Answer in 250 words; 15 Marks)
Critically examine the changes introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 to the appointment process. (Answer in 150 words; 10 Marks)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the Election Commission dissent row about?
According to The Indian Express, two of the three Election Commissioners objected at least 14 times in 10 months, mostly over SIR and Form 6. The ECI says every final decision was unanimous.
Is SIR illegal?
No. The Supreme Court upheld SIR in May 2026 under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950. The later Form 6 change has not been adjudicated; the Court says it neither approved nor disapproved it.
How does the Election Commission decide things?
Three members, equal votes, majority rules (T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, 1995). The CEC has no casting vote or veto, and the majority decision binds all.
Can the CEC be removed over this?
Only as a Supreme Court judge is: a special-majority motion in both Houses of Parliament on proved misbehaviour or incapacity (Article 324(5)). That is a very high bar.
Related Reading
CBI, the DSPE Act and State consent: independence and federalism
Practise previous-year Polity questions in the free PYQ vault
Sources
Constitution of India — Articles 324, 243K, 243ZA (Legislative Department)
PRS Legislative Research — CEC and Other Election Commissioners Bill, 2023: summary
The South First — Supreme Court upholds the Special Intensive Revision (May 2026)
Bar & Bench — Supreme Court on the revised Form 6 (October 2026)
The Week — CEC row after reports of dissent over SIR (September 2026)
Minimalist IAS static notes — by Shivam Singh.
Spotted an error or something outdated? Tell us — we correct it.
About the author
Shivam Singh
Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
Shivam has been through every stage of the exam himself — Prelims, repeated Mains attempts across UPSC and state civil services, and the interview board. For 7 years he has mentored aspirants one-to-one, helping 100+ clear various stages of the exam, including final selections.
More about Shivam →Struggling to structure answers on Two Election Commissioners Reportedly …?
Reading model answers shows the standard; writing under exam pressure reveals your actual blind spots. Write your answer to any question on Two Election Commissioners Reportedly …, upload your handwritten PDF copy, and Shivam will personally evaluate your first answer — highlighting structural flow, examiner traps, and high-yield value additions.
