The Election Commission should show how it decides

The issue

Article 324 of the Constitution gives the Election Commission of India superintendence of elections and of the preparation of electoral rolls. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, its members are chosen by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister named by the Prime Minister. Section 18 of the Act says the Commission's business shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and that where members differ, the majority decides. In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court had asked for the Chief Justice to sit on the selection committee until Parliament made a law.

On 23 September, after reports that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections in internal notes, including on matters related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of rolls that began in Bihar in 2025, the Commission issued a press note. It said that differing views are a normal part of deliberation, that the notes cited were spread over ten months, that all its decisions in the past year were unanimous, and that Electoral Registration Officers use their statutory powers to add and remove names.

Our view

Disagreement inside a three-member body is healthy. Parliament expected it when it wrote a majority rule into Section 18. The concern lies elsewhere: voters cannot see how a decision that affects their right to vote was reached, and so a report of internal notes becomes a matter of trust.

The remedy is openness. The RBI's Monetary Policy Committee publishes minutes with each member's vote, and that has strengthened its standing. The Commission could publish short minutes of major decisions on roll revision, recording any dissent. It could order an independent audit of its central roll database and publish the findings. And it should make clear in writing that decisions on individual voters rest with Electoral Registration Officers, as the Representation of the People Act, 1950 requires, and that no central software can override them.

None of this questions the Commission's independence. A body whose authority rests on public trust gains from showing its reasoning.

The other side

• Published minutes could make members less frank, and draw the Commission into daily political argument.
• The Commission says every decision was unanimous; treating internal notes as dissent may misread normal drafting.
• Clean rolls are a legitimate aim, since duplicate and dead voters distort elections, and the courts already review the SIR.

Using it in Mains

This fits GS Paper 2 (constitutional bodies, electoral reforms, the Representation of the People Acts). For BPSC it is directly relevant, since the SIR began in Bihar.

Q. The credibility of the Election Commission depends on how its members are appointed and how it takes decisions. Discuss with reference to recent debates over the Special Intensive Revision.

• Appointment: Anoop Baranwal (2023) and the 2023 Act.
• Section 18: unanimity where possible, majority otherwise.
• Transparency: minutes, recorded dissent, database audit.
• Statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.
• Keywords: institutional credibility, free and fair elections, universal adult franchise, multi-member body.

Sources: Election Commission of India, Press Note, 23 September 2026; India Code, Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023