Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi | Dissent in the Election Commission

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

When notices began to be issued after the publication of the draft list during the Delhi SIR [special intensive revision], one of the names was that of Election Commissioner (EC) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu. What was considered ironical on that day and time soon became a moment of reckoning for the poll body as reports emerged that Dr. Sandhu, along with his fellow Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi, had flagged many anomalies in the ongoing SIR process across the country over the last 10 months.

Though rumours of a rift within the Election Commission of India had been doing the rounds for some months, what came as a surprise were the formal dissent notes written by the two ECs, including one to the Cabinet Secretary, as both had been virtually handpicked by the government under the new 2023 Law for Appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

The Opposition Congress party had given written objections during the appointment of both in the selection committee meetings. When Dr. Sandhu was appointed along with CEC Gyanesh Kumar on March 14, 2024, following the retirement of EC Anup Chandra Pandey and the abrupt resignation of EC Arun Goel, Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury had given a formal dissent note in the selection committee. Later, when Mr. Joshi was appointed on February 17, 2025 after Gyanesh Kumar was elevated to CEC, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi raised objection in the committee meeting.

Both the Election Commissioners had reportedly flagged several key issues, including the centralisation of the Electoral Rolls. In May this year, Mr. Joshi proposed an audit to certify that “no one except the concerned statutory authorities has any credentials to make any change in the (voter) database”. In August, Dr. Sandhu recorded that State-level election officials were reporting that they do not have “proper and complete access” to the ERONet portal — the digital system through which the electoral rolls are maintained. He further flagged that Election Commission Director General of IT “does not have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate as given by law to the statutory authorities”.

The two ECs also said that Form 6 — which new voters must fill to register— was altered to ask if the applicant or their parents/grandparents “exist” in the electoral roll of the last SIR. They warned as early as May that such a statutory form cannot be changed without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and Dr. Sandhu called the change “unauthorised and illegal” in August, demanding its immediate removal. He also questioned who had authorised the Commission in West Bengal to file appeals against voters whom judicial tribunals had already included in the rolls — with 38 lakh appeals pending.

They also flagged the Goa case in which 97 voters, found eligible by local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) after a Supreme Court-mandated hearing, were left off the final roll because the centrally controlled software had no mechanism to record the EROs’ decisions. The Chief Electoral Officer’s (CEO) office had written eight times seeking a rollback option.

However, some experts, including former Election Commissioners, have questioned why the two did not seek a meeting of the full Commission and attempt to resolve these issues through a majority vote.

As per provisions of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, which has been carried forward to the 2023 Act, all decisions by the Election Commission have to be unanimous, where possible. But if the CEC and the other Election Commissioners genuinely differ in opinion on a matter, it is to be decided according to the opinion of the majority with each Commissioner (including the CEC) carrying equal weight in the vote. The vote of the CEC does not have any special veto. Dr. Sandhu is a retired 1988-batch IAS officer of the Uttarakhand cadre. Born in 1963, he holds an MBBS from Government Medical College, Amritsar, a master’s degree in history from Guru Nanak Dev University, and a law degree. He was Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, from July 2021 to January 2024, where he is credited with having overseen the ideation for implementing the Uniform Civil Code.

He was also Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Additional Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Commissioner, Ludhiana Municipal Corporation — for which he was awarded the President’s Medal. He is also an expert on urban reforms and has authored many papers on municipal management. Dr. Sandhu also briefly served as Secretary, Lokpal of India, from February 5 to March 14, 2024, just before he was appointed as an Election Commissioner.

Vivek Joshi was born on May 21, 1966, in Uttar Pradesh. A 1989-batch IAS officer of the Haryana cadre, he’s a mechanical engineer from IIT-Roorkee. He holds a master’s degree in International Business from IIFT, New Delhi, and an MA and PhD in International Economics from the Graduate Institute, Geneva.

He has served as a Financial Services Secretary and Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India. Earlier, he was member secretary of the Fifth State Finance Commission of Haryana.

When he was appointed EC at 58, he was among the younger members appointed to the poll panel and had taken voluntary retirement before joining the Election Commission, which was considered somewhat unusual.

He himself had called the appointment “unexpected” and noted it was meaningful to him personally as it brought him back to his home cadre (Haryana) briefly before moving to the central body. Mr. Joshi also has family members in the bureaucracy. His brother, Vineet Joshi, a 1992-batch IAS officer, serves as Secretary, Higher Education.

Given the seniority order among current commissioners, if Mr. Kumar demits office in January 2029 after retiring, then Mr. Joshi would be the senior-most EC and could succeed him as Dr. Sandhu retires in July 2028. However, if Mr. Kumar has to go before July 2028, Dr. Sandhu becomes the senior-most as he was appointed before Mr. Joshi.

Most importantly, the 2023 Act for appointment of ECs and CEC doesn’t guarantee automatic succession by seniority. Instead, the Act provides a statutory framework for the appointment, tenure, and service conditions of the CEC and ECs, replacing the earlier system governed largely by convention.

There is no clause in the Act that says the senior-most EC automatically becomes CEC when a vacancy arises. Every appointment — including to the post of CEC — goes through this same fresh appointment process unlike the earlier tradition of the next senior-most Election Commissioner being the successor to the incumbent CEC.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.