What does dissent within a multi-member constitutional body like the ECI signify for institutional accountability? Illustrate with recent examples.

Article 324 places the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections in the Election Commission of India (ECI) [1]. The ECI has three members: the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. Dissent within such a body is not a sign that it is failing. It is the internal check that a multi-member design is meant to provide.

What dissent signifies for accountability

• Check on one-person decisions: the 2023 Act on appointing the CEC and ECs provides that where members cannot agree, the majority decides [2]. The law therefore expects disagreement.
• Pressure to justify decisions in law: dissent makes the majority defend its legal authority. One example is whether the ECI can change forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which the Centre notifies.
• Independence: in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court stressed that the ECI's independence must be protected [3]. Members who can disagree freely are a sign of that independence.
• Record for review: dissent notes give courts and Parliament a reasoned alternative view.

Recent examples

• Online Form 6 and the SIR declaration (2026): Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi wrote dissent notes. They flagged that the online form had been changed without the Union Law Ministry's approval, with a single OTP and e-Sign covering both documents [4]. The ECI then took the declaration off its online platforms where the SIR was complete (September 2026). Where the SIR is still running, it split the two documents, each with its own OTP and e-Sign (November 2026) [4]. The dissent led to a course correction.
• Model Code complaints (2019): an Election Commissioner asked for minority views to be recorded in Model Code orders. The request was reportedly turned down, and the dissent stayed in internal files. This shows dissent can be muted.

Limits

• Opacity: the public learnt of the 2026 dissent from press reports, not from an ECI order [4].
• Credibility: disagreement made public during elections can be used to question the body's neutrality.
• Appointments: the executive holds a majority on the selection committee under the 2023 Act [2], which may discourage dissent over time.

Dissent in the ECI is therefore accountability at work: in 2026 it corrected a flawed online process. Three steps would make it stronger:

• Publish dissent notes, with the majority's reply, on rules that affect voters.
• Codify the rules on how the ECI conducts its business.
• Bring in new requirements for applicants only through notified amendments to the rules.

Together these would protect the independence that Anoop Baranwal stressed, and with it free and fair elections, a basic feature of the Constitution.