T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995)

T.N. Seshan v. Union of India is a 1995 Supreme Court judgment that settled how a multi-member Election Commission should work. The court upheld the law that turned the Commission into a three-member body, with a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners (ECs). It ruled that the Commission must take decisions together, and that when members disagree, the majority view wins. The CEC acts as the chairman, but he is not a boss whose word is final.

Why did this question arise?

The Constitution allows the Election Commission to have one member or several. For almost 40 years, it had only a CEC. When more members were added, a new question came up: who has the final say? If the CEC alone decides, the other members are pointless. If every member is equal, the Commission needs a rule for breaking disagreements. The Seshan case answered this question.

How did the Commission become multi-member?

The history moved in steps:

1. 1950 to 1989: The Commission worked with only the CEC.
2. 16 October 1989: Two ECs, S.S. Dhanoa and V.S. Seigell, were appointed for the first time.
3. 1 January 1990: The two posts were abolished, and the Commission went back to a single member.
4. 1991: In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (24 July 1991), a two-judge bench upheld the abolition. It said appointing a CEC is compulsory, but appointing extra ECs is left to the President's choice.
5. 1 October 1993: The President issued an ordinance and fixed the number of ECs at two. M.S. Gill and G.V.G. Krishnamurthy were appointed ECs the same day. The ordinance was later replaced by an Act of Parliament in 1993.

What did the 1993 law say?

The 1993 changes amended the 1991 law on the service conditions of the CEC and ECs, and renamed it the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. Its Section 10 set the decision rule:

• The Commission can decide its own procedure and share out work among members, but only by a unanimous decision.
• Its business should be done unanimously as far as possible.
• If the CEC and the other ECs differ, the majority view prevails.

So, in a three-member Commission, two members together can outvote the third, even if the third is the CEC.

What did T.N. Seshan argue?

T.N. Seshan was the CEC from 1990 to 1996. He challenged the ordinance and the appointments in the Supreme Court in October 1993. He argued that the CEC holds a higher position than the ECs under the Constitution. He also argued that letting two ECs outvote the CEC would weaken the Commission's independence.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi, gave its judgment on 14 July 1995. It rejected Seshan's challenge and upheld both the law and the appointments. The main points were:

• Multi-member body is valid: Article 324(2) allows the President to appoint other ECs, and Parliament can make a law on how the Commission works. The court noted that it is desirable for such vast powers not to be exercised by one individual.
• The majority rule is valid: Deciding by majority is normal for any multi-member body.
• The CEC is not superior in decision-making: The CEC's role as chairman is to preside over meetings, keep order and conduct business. The ECs must have a say in decisions. The court warned that if the CEC's word were final, the ECs would become non-functional or ornamental.
• Why the CEC has extra protection: The CEC's stronger removal protection exists because the CEC is a permanent part of the Commission, while ECs may or may not be appointed. It does not make the CEC the ECs' superior.
• The removal proviso protects ECs: The rule that an EC can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation is a safeguard against the government. The CEC must use this power for valid reasons linked to the Commission's smooth working, not on a whim or out of personal dislike.

How does it apply today?

The 2023 Act replaced the 1991 Act but kept the same decision rule in Section 18. The Commission should try to decide unanimously; if members differ, the majority decides. A well-known example came in 2019. EC Ashok Lavasa asked that his dissent on some model code of conduct complaints be recorded in the Commission's orders. On 21 May 2019, the Commission decided by a 2:1 majority that dissent would be recorded in its internal files, while its orders would reflect only the majority view.

Commonly confused concepts

• S.S. Dhanoa (1991) vs T.N. Seshan (1995): Dhanoa upheld the abolition of EC posts in 1990 and said the government may choose not to have ECs. Seshan upheld the creation of EC posts in 1993 and the majority rule.
• Chairman vs superior: Article 324(3) makes the CEC the chairman of the Commission. In Seshan, the court said this means running meetings, not having the final word.
• Removal protection vs decision power: The CEC has stronger protection from removal (like a Supreme Court judge). But in decision-making, all three members have one vote each.
• Election Commission of India vs State Election Commission: The ECI (Article 324) can have several members. A State Election Commission (Articles 243K and 243ZA) is headed by a State Election Commissioner and runs local body elections.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• Unequal removal protection: Critics argue that as long as the CEC can recommend an EC's removal, ECs may feel pressure not to disagree. The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and Justice Rastogi's opinion in Anoop Baranwal (2023) suggested equal protection for ECs. Others argue the CEC needs some authority to keep the Commission running smoothly.
• Transparency of dissent: Some experts say dissent notes should be published so the public can see how decisions are made. Others say keeping them internal protects the Commission's authority and avoids public controversy.
• Consensus vs speed: Collegial decision-making prevents one person from dominating, but disagreements can slow decisions during elections.
• Way forward: Suggestions include equal removal protection for all commissioners, clear written rules on how work is shared out and how dissent is recorded, and regular full-Commission meetings on major decisions.

Concepts to Know

• Collegial functioning: A group of members working together and taking decisions jointly, where each member has a real voice, instead of one person deciding alone.
• Ordinance: A temporary law issued by the President (Article 123) when Parliament is not in session. Parliament must approve it within six weeks of meeting again, or it lapses.
• Dissent: A written disagreement by a member with the decision of the majority.
• Ornamental: Present only for show, with no real power.
• Model Code of Conduct: A set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission that parties and candidates must follow during elections.