Disclose details of decisions by EC, say former members

1. At a Glance

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a multi-member constitutional body under Article 324: the CEC plus such number of Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President decides [4].
• The 2023 Act says ECI business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. If members differ, the majority opinion decides [1].
• Former CEC/ECs are demanding that the ECI publish which decisions were unanimous and which were by majority. This follows an "exposé" claiming that decisions were taken without the concurrence of two ECs [5].
• The topic is relevant to institutional independence, transparency and collegial decision-making in electoral democracy.

2. Why in the News

• The Hindu (24 Sept 2026) reports a controversy over an "exposé" alleging that decisions were taken without the concurrence of ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [5].
• Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi says all decisions are illegal if they are neither unanimous nor backed by a majority. He wants the full list of decisions made public, split into unanimous and majority [5].
• Former EC Ashok Lavasa wants the ECI to disclose all details, including the dates of notes or letters and the action taken on them. He resigned in 2020 after differences within the Commission [5].
• Former CEC O.P. Rawat is quoted: "If you feel that something wrong is taking place, you can immediately go public" [5].
• Lavasa says the only way to refute the two ECs' claim is to show a record that they were present at the meetings where the decisions were taken (the excerpt is truncated here) [5].
• Caveat: the allegations are as reported in the article. I could not verify the "exposé" from whitelisted sources.

3. Background & Evolution

• Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI. The Commission comprises the CEC and such ECs as the President may fix [4].
• 2 March 2023: Anoop Baranwal v Union of India. The Supreme Court held that the Constituent Assembly intended an independent ECI, with appointments regulated by law rather than decided by the Executive [4].
• Until Parliament legislated, the Court directed that the CEC and ECs be appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee [4].
• The interim committee was the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. This is from my background knowledge; it is not in the retrieved snippets.
• 2023: Parliament enacted the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023) [1][2].
• The Act provides for unanimity where possible and majority decision otherwise [1].
• PRS notes that the Selection Committee in the Act has a majority of members from the government of the day, which may undermine ECI independence [4].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Act's rule is "unanimous as far as possible, else majority". This implies that a decision opposed by two of three members lacks validity [1][5].
• The Constitution leaves ECI composition and procedure to law under Art. 324. The 2023 Act fills that gap [4].
• The Act displaced the Court's interim committee, which had a judicial member [4].

Ethical / Governance

• Transparency: the former members demand disclosure of records showing who attended, who dissented and when notes were issued [5].
• Collegiality: the multi-member design is meant to prevent unilateral decisions by the CEC. Quraishi stresses this [5].
• A government-majority Selection Committee raises independence concerns [4].

Administrative

• Proof depends on minutes and attendance records of Commission meetings. Lavasa says only such a record can refute the two ECs' claim [5].
• Lavasa asks for disclosure of the dates of notes or letters and the action taken on them [5].

Historical

• Lavasa's 2020 resignation over internal differences is a precedent for dissent within the Commission [5].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 23-24 Sept 2026: Former ECs call for disclosure of decisions and their unanimity status amid the "exposé" controversy [5].
• The events of 2023 (the Baranwal judgment and the Act) are the legal backdrop [1][4].
• I could not retrieve other 2025-26 developments from whitelisted sources.

7. Prelims Hooks

• Art. 324 covers superintendence, direction and control of elections.
• The ECI comprises the CEC and such ECs as the President may fix [4].
• The CEC and Other ECs Act is 2023, Act No. 49 [1].
• The Act's decision rule is unanimity as far as possible, else majority [1].
• Anoop Baranwal v UoI was decided on 2 March 2023 [4].
• The Court's interim Selection Committee was to operate until Parliament legislated [4].
• The statutory Selection Committee (per PRS) is the PM, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha [4].
• Ashok Lavasa resigned as EC in 2020 [5].
• S.Y. Quraishi and O.P. Rawat are former CECs [5].
• Current ECs named in the article are Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [5].

8. The 2019 Dissent Row Is the Real Precedent Here

• The ECI has already voted on this exact question — and said no
• On 21 May 2019 the full Commission decided by 2-1 that a dissenting member's view would stay in the internal file and would not be part of the ECI's order [6].
• Ashok Lavasa was the one who lost that vote. He had dissented on a series of clean chits given on election-speech complaints, and then recused himself from Model Code of Conduct (MCC) cases [6].

• So today's demand for disclosure is not a new idea. It is the same fight, now being made from outside the Commission [5][6].

• The ECI's own defence back then tells you why the record is thin

• The ECI argued that MCC violation cases are not quasi-judicial (not court-like), and that such orders are not signed by the CEC and the other ECs together [6].
• If an order carries no signatures of all members, an outsider cannot tell from the order who agreed and who did not.

• That is exactly the gap the former members are now pointing at: the decision exists, but the paper does not show the split [5].

• Why this matters for the 2023 Act's rule

• The Act says business is transacted unanimously as far as possible, else by majority [1].
• But the Act fixes only how a decision is taken. It says nothing about showing how it was taken.
• A rule with no visible record cannot be checked by anyone outside the Commission.

9. Why an RTI Application Will Not Get You These Files

• This was tried in 2019 and refused
• When Lavasa's dissent note was sought, the ECI refused disclosure, saying it could endanger the life or physical safety of a person [7].

• That is a standard exemption ground under the Right to Information Act. Once an authority claims it, the applicant must fight through appeals.

• What this means for the aspirant's answer

• Do not write "RTI will solve this". It did not.
• Disclosure here needs a change in the ECI's own practice or in the rules — the ECI deciding to record minority views in the order itself, as it declined to do in 2019 [6].
• This is a good example for GS-II: a transparency law exists, but the exemption clauses plus the body's own procedure decide what actually comes out.

10. The Strongest Argument Against Publishing Every Dissent

• State the other side fairly — the ECI is not obviously wrong
• If every internal note is published, members may stop writing frankly. People write carefully when they know the note will be in the newspaper.
• The ECI's 2019 position was that MCC cases are administrative, not court-like, so a formal minority order is out of place [6].

• The ECI also raised a safety ground for one specific file [7]. A blanket "publish everything" rule ignores that some files genuinely name vulnerable people.

• But the answer to it is narrower than the ECI's blanket refusal

• The safety objection was about one note. It cannot justify hiding the unanimous-or-majority status of all decisions [5][7].
• Publishing only "this decision was unanimous / this one was by majority" reveals no private detail. It reveals only the arithmetic the 2023 Act already commands [1].

• The candour worry can be met by publishing after the election is over, and by keeping the reasoning confidential while releasing the count.

• Concede this much: a fully live, real-time dissent feed during an election would be used as a political weapon by parties. Timing, not secrecy, is the honest fix.

11. The Removal Clause That Makes Majority Rule Weaker Than It Looks

• An EC's job security depends on the CEC
• The CEC can be removed only by the same hard process used for a Supreme Court judge [4].
• An Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC — and the 2023 Act kept this old rule unchanged [4].

• So the two ECs who can outvote the CEC 2-1 are the same two whose removal the CEC can recommend. Equal vote, unequal protection.

• The Supreme Court said this is Parliament's job, not the Court's

• In 2023 the Court said it could not order parity in removal, because the Constitution itself lays down different removal processes, and changing it needs a Constitutional Amendment [4].

• It said extending the protection to ECs is for Parliament to consider. Parliament, in the 2023 Act, did not [4].

• Two more gaps in the same Act, worth one line each in a Mains answer

• Salary moved from "same as a Supreme Court judge" to "same as the Cabinet Secretary". A judge's salary is fixed by an Act of Parliament under Article 125; the Cabinet Secretary's is fixed by the government [4]. Pay now moves by executive decision.
• If the post of Leader of Opposition is vacant (for example, when the Lok Sabha is dissolved), the Selection Committee is left with only ruling-party members, and its recommendation is still valid [4].

12. What Would Actually Put the Split on the Record

• ECI: record the minority view inside the order, not only in the file
• This is the precise thing the Commission refused 2-1 in 2019 [6]. Reversing it needs no new law — only a decision by the full Commission.

• The ECI itself decides disqualification of MPs and MLAs and settles disputes, which PRS calls its quasi-judicial work [4]. Courts and tribunals doing such work publish majority and minority opinions as a matter of course.

• ECI: publish a plain register of decisions, marked unanimous or majority

• Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi has asked for exactly this list, split into unanimous and majority [5].

• No reasons, no names of complainants — just the status the 2023 Act already requires the Commission to arrive at [1].

• Parliament: give the ECs the same removal protection as the CEC

• The Supreme Court in 2023 pointed this to Parliament and said it needs a Constitutional Amendment [4].

• Without it, a member who dissents carries a personal risk that the CEC does not.

• Government: build the ECI its own independent secretariat

• The Goswami Committee (1990) and the Supreme Court in 2023 both asked for an independent secretariat for the ECI. The 2023 Act did not address it [4].

• Staff drawn from and returning to the government have weak reason to preserve an inconvenient internal record.

• Widen who can be appointed, as other countries do

• The Act allows only those who are or have been Secretary or equivalent to the government [4].
• In South Africa, a member of the Election Commission must be a judge; in the United States, members must not hold federal government posts [4].
• A body doing court-like work staffed only by ex-civil servants is more likely to treat its decisions as office files than as orders.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: ECI full Commission rejected recording dissent in its orders by a 2-1 vote, 21 May 2019 [6]
• Law/Case: Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2 March 2023) — Court could not order parity in removal for ECs; said it needs a Constitutional Amendment and is for Parliament [4]
• Law/Case: CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023), s. on transaction of business — unanimous as far as possible, else majority [1]
• Law/Case: Article 125 — a Supreme Court judge's salary is fixed by an Act of Parliament; the Cabinet Secretary's, to which ECI pay is now tied, is fixed by the government [4]
• Report/Committee: Goswami Committee, 1990 — independent secretariat for the ECI; also Law Commission 2015 (PM, LoP, CJI as selectors) [4]
• Comparison: South Africa — a member of the Election Commission must be a judge; United States — members must not hold federal government posts [4]
• Transparency precedent: ECI refused disclosure of Lavasa's dissent note citing danger to the life or physical safety of a person [7]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Constitutional bodies; statutory and quasi-judicial bodies; transparency and accountability; the electoral system.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance and institutional integrity.
• Likely question stems:
• The multi-member design of the Election Commission is meant to ensure collegial decision-making. Examine in light of the CEC and ECs Act, 2023.
• Transparency in the working of constitutional bodies enhances public trust. Discuss with reference to the ECI.
• Critically evaluate the composition of the Selection Committee for the CEC and ECs after Anoop Baranwal.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Art. 324-329: the constitutional framework for elections.
• Removal of the CEC and ECs: the CEC's protection versus the ECs' dependence on the CEC's recommendation.
• RTI and constitutional bodies: the disclosure demand.
• Model Code of Conduct: the likely subject of the disputed decisions, though the article excerpt does not say so.
• Selection Committees (CBI, CVC, Lokpal): comparison of executive dominance.
• Judicial review of ECI decisions: the limits of the Court's role.
• Delimitation: a live topic on the same news pages [5].

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Act versus SC interim order: the SC committee had the CJI. The Act's committee has a Cabinet Minister instead [4].
• Unanimity is not mandatory: the rule is "as far as possible", with majority as the fallback [1].
• Article 324 deals with the ECI. Do not confuse it with Art. 280 (Finance Commission) or Art. 315 (UPSC).
• Allegations are unproven: the exposé's claims are unverified. Do not state them as facts.
• Chief versus other members: the CEC has no casting or overriding power under the decision rule as retrieved [1].