ECI should give details of decisions taken and whether they had majority backing: former Election Commissioners

Amid a controversy over an "exposé” claiming that decisions were taken without the concurrence of two Election Commissioners, former Election Commissioners said the poll body should immediately disclose details of decisions taken and whether they were unanimous or passed by a majority.

According to an investigative report by The Indian Express, two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months, saying major decisions were being made in the name of the full Election Commission without their knowledge.

They described several of these decisions as “unauthorised and illegal”.

Dissent row: Election Commission says highlighting certain internal notes gives only one side of the picture Under the law governing the Commission, its business is meant to be conducted unanimously wherever possible, and if the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the other Commissioners disagree, the majority prevails.

This raises the question whether a decision can be treated as valid if Election Commissioners Mr.

Sandhu and Mr.

Joshi together oppose it.

According to former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y.

Quraishi, all decisions are illegal if they are not unanimous or backed by the majority.

Minister in CEC-EC selection panel fails ‘perception test’, says Justice Datta in split verdict “Multi-member commissions should be unanimous and should have majority views.

The list of all decisions should now be made public as to how many were unanimous and how many were by majority,” he said.

Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, who resigned following differences within the Commission in 2020, said the ECI should disclose all details, including the dates on which the notes or letters were given and what action was taken on them.

Communication between CEC, ECs shows functioning democracy: BJP “If two commissioners are saying that they were not involved, then the only way to refute this is to show a record that they were present in the commission meeting in which these decisions were taken,” he said.

Another former CEC, O.P.

Rawat, said it would have been better had the two ECs not waited for 10 months.

“The Election Commission provides complete independence, and if you feel that something wrong is taking place, you can immediately go public,” he said.