'I eat politicians for breakfast': TN Seshan’s famous words are back amid SIR controversy; when the former CEC challenged the Centre & fought EC power battle

The famous phrase “I eat politicians for breakfast”, associated with former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) TN Seshan, has resurfaced amid the latest controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The ECI is facing renewed political scrutiny after a report in The Indian Express highlighted differences within the poll panel over SIR-related decisions. According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over a 10-month period on decisions linked to the exercise, including issues concerning voter deletions and electoral roll data.

The developments have also brought renewed attention to earlier instances when disagreements within the three-member Election Commission became public, including the constitutional battle involving Seshan in the 1990s and Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa's dissent during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Who was TN Seshan and why was he known for taking on politicians?

TN Seshan served as India's 10th Chief Election Commissioner from December 1990 to December 1996 and became known for enforcing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and asserting the constitutional powers of the Election Commission.

Seshan's tenure coincided with a major change in the structure of the poll panel. In October 1993, the government converted the Election Commission into a multi-member body by appointing two Election Commissioners alongside him.

On October 1, 1993, the President promulgated an ordinance providing for two additional Election Commissioners. MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy were appointed to the posts on the same day.

Seshan challenged the move in the Supreme Court, arguing that the appointments were intended to dilute his authority and sideline him. The government, however, maintained that the Constitution allowed the Election Commission to function as a multi-member body.

Seshan vs Election Commissioners: What happened in 1993?

The dispute quickly became more than a constitutional disagreement. The Supreme Court's eventual judgment recorded "unpleasant exchanges" between Seshan and Krishnamurthy during a meeting in October 1993, with allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the two commissioners.

Gill also spoke publicly about the strained relationship and recalled his attempts to establish contact with Seshan after the appointments.

"The CEC, however, acted as if we don't exist," Gill famously said in 1995.

Seshan approached the Supreme Court on October 26, 1993, challenging both the ordinance and the appointments. The case raised an important question about the functioning of a multi-member Election Commission: could the CEC's view override those of the other Election Commissioners, or were all members required to function collectively?

1995 Supreme Court verdict: CEC cannot override other Election Commissioners

The constitutional dispute ended with a Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment on July 14, 1995.

The court upheld the law providing for a multi-member Election Commission as well as the appointments of Gill and Krishnamurthy.

It rejected the argument that the CEC's opinion should automatically prevail over those of the other Election Commissioners.

"If the CEC is considered to be a superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental," the court observed.

The judgment also referred to the personal friction between the commissioners. "It is a pity they did not try to work as a team," the court said, adding that "suspicion and distrust got the better of them".

The court hoped that the commissioners would instead work with "mutual respect and confidence".

The verdict established an important principle for a multi-member Election Commission: the CEC was not a superior authority whose view could simply override the other Election Commissioners.

2019 Election Commission row: Ashok Lavasa's dissent

The issue of differences within the Election Commission surfaced again during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

At the time, the commission comprised CEC Sunil Arora and Election Commissioners Ashok Lavasa and Sushil Chandra. Lavasa disagreed with the majority view on several complaints alleging Model Code of Conduct violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.

The majority gave Modi and Shah clean chits in the complaints, while Lavasa wanted his dissenting views to be recorded and included in the commission's orders.

The disagreement later became a wider dispute over whether a minority opinion should form part of the final orders issued by the Election Commission.

Ashok Lavasa says his dissent was being “suppressed”

Lavasa eventually informed Arora that he would stay away from proceedings involving MCC complaints.

In a letter to the CEC, Lavasa said his minority decisions were being "suppressed" in a manner contrary to conventions followed by multi-member statutory bodies.

"In the present circumstances, I am left with no option but to keep away from such proceedings," he wrote.

The dispute became public during the election campaign and prompted Arora to respond.

'We are not clones': Sunil Arora on differences within ECI

On May 18, 2019, then CEC Sunil Arora said that the three members of the Election Commission were not expected to agree on every issue.

"The three members of ECI are not expected to be template or clones of each other," Arora said, describing the controversy as "unsavoury and avoidable".

Arora also pointed out that differences of opinion had existed within the Election Commission in the past.

The full commission subsequently discussed the procedure for recording dissent. Lavasa's demand that minority views be included in final MCC orders was not accepted.

Instead, the commission decided that the views of all members would be recorded in its proceedings, while the final order would reflect the majority decision.

Lavasa resigned before becoming Chief Election Commissioner

The disagreement did not end with the 2019 elections.

On August 18, 2020, Lavasa resigned as Election Commissioner after being appointed vice-president of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). He had joined the Election Commission in January 2018 and still had more than two years remaining in his tenure.

Lavasa was also next in line to become Chief Election Commissioner based on the sequence of appointments at the time.

The Election Commission formally bid farewell to him later that month, with Arora saying the ECI's loss was the Asian Development Bank's gain.


Inputs from TOI