Indian Express Executive Director Anant Goenka has criticised the Election Commission’s response to a report published by his newspaper, but in doing so, appears to have overlooked a basic provision governing how the multi-member poll panel takes decisions.
The controversy followed a September 24 report or rather a hitjob by The Indian Express titled “14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps”, which claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders allegedly taken without their knowledge. The report said the objections concerned issues including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals in the Special Intensive Revision process and access to electoral-roll databases.
The report also stated that the CEC is “first among equals” and does not have the power to decide alone. It cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which the business of the Commission is to be transacted unanimously “as far as possible” and, where the members differ, decided according to the opinion of the majority.
Following the report, the ECI issued a press note on 23 September 2026, stating that written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks and balances are standard practices within a multi-member constitutional body.
The Commission said that differing views and observations are “a normal part of deliberation in any institution” and form part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken.
It also said that the suggestions made by the Commissioners were aimed at further improving electoral processes and stressed that the Commission had taken numerous decisions, issued instructions and introduced around 40 initiatives and electoral reforms through unanimous decisions of the full Commission over the past year.
Official Press Note pic.twitter.com/xIQvXHqMSt
— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) September 23, 2026
Responding to the ECI’s position, Goenka wrote on social media, “Even if the ECI does nothing beyond dismissing the 14 objections as “routine disagreements”, I’d like to believe that today’s story will, at the very least, make the CEC think twice before acting without the consent of his colleagues for the rest of his term. Congratulations to @RitikaChopra__, Chief Editor @rajkamaljha and his team, all of whom I am blessed to call colleagues”
Even if the ECI does nothing beyond dismissing the 14 objections as “routine disagreements”, I’d like to believe that today’s story will, at the very least, make the CEC think twice before acting without the consent of his colleagues for the rest of his term.
Congratulations to… https://t.co/dbgJ1q4Oll
— Anant Goenka (@anantgoenka) September 23, 2026
The problem with this argument is that the law does not require the CEC to obtain the “consent” of both other Commissioners for every decision.
Section 18 of the 2023 Act specifically provides for unanimity only “as far as possible”. Where the three members differ in opinion, the provision says the matter is to be decided by the majority.
The ECI itself states on its official website that its three-member Commission has operated with “decision making power by majority vote” since the multi-member system was established. It further states: “All Election Commissioners have equal say in the decision making of the Commission.”
In other words, the statutory framework does not establish a system in which the CEC is required to secure the concurrence of the other two Commissioners before every action. Nor does it give the CEC a unilateral veto over the other Commissioners. Decisions of the Commission, where there is a difference of opinion, are determined by the majority.
This makes Goenka’s suggestion that the ECI’s response should make the CEC “think twice before acting without the consent of his colleagues” a curious formulation, given the very legal provision cited in the Indian Express report itself.
The newspaper’s own report also acknowledges the statutory position. Its section on “what the law requires” states that the CEC and the two Election Commissioners are equal in rank and that, under Section 18, matters on which they differ are decided by majority.
The ECI’s official description of its functioning reinforces this. It says the Commission conducts business through regular meetings and circulation of papers, with all Election Commissioners having an equal say in decision-making.
Therefore, the substantive issue raised by the Indian Express report is not whether the CEC is legally required to obtain unanimous consent from the other two Commissioners for every action. The relevant question is whether specific actions or communications were undertaken without the approval of the Commission where such approval was legally or procedurally required.
But this is where Goenka’s argument falls apart.
The Indian Express report says Sandhu and Joshi had objected that several communications were being issued in the name of the ECI without the requisite approval of the Commission. It quoted Sandhu as saying that “many communications go out in the name of the ECI but they do not have the approval of the Commission”, while Joshi similarly said several communications were disseminated without the requisite approval.
That is a materially different question from whether the CEC can take any action without obtaining the personal “consent” of both colleagues.
Goenka’s post, however, appears to overlook this distinction. The law allows the Commission to take a decision by majority when its members disagree, while the ECI itself says all three Commissioners have an equal say.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
