The Election Commission should publish its dissent

The Election Commission of India has made a fair point about itself. Responding on 23 September to an Indian Express report that two Election Commissioners objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions and orders issued without their knowledge, including on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Commission said that “Written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices”. Disagreement, in other words, is how a multi-member body is meant to work.

We agree. That is exactly why those notes should be published.

Disagreement is not a scandal

A three-member Commission exists so that more than one mind is applied to decisions that affect every voter. If two members never questioned the Chief Election Commissioner, there would be little point in having them. The Commission also says that its decisions over the past year were the outcome of unanimous decisions of the full Commission. That can be true at the same time as the report: members can object to a draft, argue, and then sign a final order.

The trouble is that the public currently learns about these arguments only through leaks, and leaks arrive without context. A reader cannot tell whether an objection was about wording, about legal risk, or about the basic design of the SIR. In that vacuum, opponents can read every note as proof of wrongdoing, and the Commission can only answer that all is well. Neither side gains, and trust in the institution falls.

Other bodies already do this

India has working models. The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee voted on 7 October to raise the repo rate, and its resolution named the two members, Nagesh Kumar and Ram Singh, who wanted to keep the policy stance neutral. The full minutes, with each member’s reasoning, will be published on 21 October. Nobody thinks the RBI is weaker for it. Supreme Court judges write dissents as a matter of course, and in September a two-judge bench split openly on whether to refer the challenge to the Election Commissioners’ appointment law to a larger bench.

The strongest argument against publication deserves a hearing. Commissioners may write more cautiously if they know their notes will be read in public, and officers may stop offering frank technical advice. That risk is real, but it can be managed. The RBI does not publish staff memos; it publishes how members voted and why.

What the Commission should do

The stakes justify the change. SIR phase three draft rolls in 17 states and Union Territories left out more than 6.15 crore names, Deccan Herald reported on 1 September. Changes to Form 6, the form used to register as a voter, have drawn questions from the Supreme Court, which has said it wants to see who modified the form. Decisions of this weight should carry a public record of who agreed and on what terms.

We recommend that the Commission adopt a simple rule. For every decision taken by the full Commission on the conduct of elections or the preparation of rolls, it should record each member’s position and publish any dissenting or concurring note with the order, or within two weeks of it. Internal staff notes and routine administrative matters can stay internal. If the Commission does not act on its own, Parliament can write the requirement into the 2023 law on the Commission. A Commission that publishes its disagreements has less to fear from leaks.

The reporting behind this view

• 14objections recorded by two Election Commissioners in 10 months, as reported by the Indian Express
• 4-2RBI Monetary Policy Committee vote on stance on 7 Oct 2026, with dissenters named; minutes due 21 Oct
• 6.15 crorenames left out of SIR phase III draft rolls in 17 states and UTs