Former Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi has said decisions taken unilaterally by one member of the Election Commission of India would be invalid, as controversy grows over reported objections raised inside the three-member poll body. Speaking in an interview after disclosures of internal differences involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Quraishi said the commission was designed to function collectively. “Any, all decisions taken by a single man, whosoever he may be, he may be the chairman of the Election Commission, but they’re all illegal,” he said.
His comments followed reports that Sandhu and Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to steps concerning electoral rolls, changes in enrolment procedures and control of the commission’s technology systems. The Election Commission has rejected suggestions that its final decisions were divided, saying individual observations and internal checks were part of normal deliberations and that final decisions had been unanimous.
The dispute has drawn attention to the legal framework governing the commission. The Supreme Court held in the 1995 T. N. Seshan case that the Chief Election Commissioner, when the body has multiple members, acts as its chairman rather than as a superior authority. The law provides that commission business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, when unanimity cannot be achieved, decided by majority.
Quraishi argued that any decision issued without the participation required of the full commission should therefore face legal scrutiny. He called for a technical and legal audit of decisions taken by the Election Commission over the past two years, saying the reported objections raised questions about whether institutional procedures had been followed.
The former CEC also addressed opposition demands for elections to be annulled over alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revisions. He stopped short of presenting annulment as an automatic consequence, but said large-scale deletion of names had damaged confidence in the electoral process and warranted close examination.
The controversy is closely tied to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls carried out across several states and Union Territories. More than 13 crore names were removed from draft rolls during the exercise, though draft deletion does not by itself establish that every affected voter was finally excluded or wrongfully removed. The commission has said roll revisions are intended to remove entries relating to people who are dead, duplicated, shifted or otherwise ineligible while allowing eligible citizens to establish their claims.
Questions over exclusions have also reached the Supreme Court. In litigation concerning West Bengal, the Election Commission told the court that 27.16 lakh voters had been removed during the revision and that more than 22 lakh appeals seeking inclusion had been filed. The commission has defended the process and argued that challenges to election results must follow the remedies provided by election law.
Opposition parties have seized on the reported internal objections to demand accountability from Kumar. The commission, however, has maintained that the existence of notes, suggestions or disagreements during internal discussion does not show that final orders lacked collective approval. Its position is that the three-member body ultimately acted unanimously on the decisions now under scrutiny.
The present commission comprises Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner and Sandhu and Joshi as Election Commissioners. Kumar took office as CEC in February 2025, while Sandhu joined the commission in March 2024 and Joshi in February 2025.
Quraishi said disagreement within a constitutional body was not itself abnormal, but argued that dissent became significant when members believed decisions were being implemented without their knowledge or approval. He referred to the pressures faced by commissioners who differ with the chair and said institutional safeguards depended on members being able to record and act on their views.
