EC faultlines have a long history, dating back to 1989
Renewed attention on internal decision-making within the Election Commission of India (ECI) has revived interest in the institutional history of how the Commission became a multi-member body, and how it has managed disagreement among its members since then.
The ECI functioned as a single-member body for nearly four decades after Independence before being expanded, contracted, and re-expanded within a short span in 1989-1993.
Since its restoration as a three-member body in 1993, the ECI has operated on a "one plus two" principle for resolving internal disagreement — the CEC and two ECs are equal in status, and decisions follow majority rule rather than the CEC's own view prevailing.
Disagreements among Commission members, when they arise, have periodically drawn public and judicial attention to how such a multi-member body should function and record dissent.
From single-member to multi-member Election Commission (1950-1993)
The Election Commission of India was established under Article 324 on 25 January 1950 as a single-member body, headed by the first Chief Election Commissioner, Sukumar Sen. It remained a single-member body for the first four decades of the Republic, through several general elections.
Key Details
- On 16 October 1989, ahead of the 1989 general election, the President appointed two additional Election Commissioners for the first time, converting the ECI into a three-member body via a notification issued under Article 324(2)-(3), later given a statutory basis through the Election Commissioner (Amendment) Act, 1989 (also referred to as the Election Commissioners Amendment Act).
- This first multi-member phase was short-lived: on 1 January 1990, the President rescinded the notification creating the two additional posts, and the Commission reverted to a single-member body under CEC alone.
- The Commission was restored to a three-member structure on 1 October 1993 and has continued as such since, with the CEC and two Election Commissioners functioning as a coequal body.
The current discussion of "faultlines" within the ECI traces directly back to this 1989 expansion, the first moment the Commission had to grapple with internal disagreement among coequal members rather than a single decision-maker.
S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991) — Testing the President's power over EC composition
One of the two Election Commissioners appointed in October 1989, S.S. Dhanoa, challenged the January 1990 notification that abolished his post and that of the other EC, arguing that reducing the Commission back to a single member undermined its independence.
Key Details
- Decided by the Supreme Court on 24 July 1991, the case examined the President's discretion under Article 324 to alter the number of Election Commissioners.
- The Court held that while appointing a Chief Election Commissioner is constitutionally mandatory, appointing other Election Commissioners is not obligatory — Article 324 leaves the number of ECs, and whether to have any at all, to the President's discretion depending on the Commission's workload from time to time.
- The petitioner's removal was accordingly upheld; the case established that a multi-member Commission is a matter of executive/legislative choice, not a constitutional requirement in itself.
This case is the legal backdrop to why the Commission could swing between single- and multi-member forms twice within four years (1989 to 1993) before settling into the present three-member structure.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) — The "one plus two" principle
After the Commission's 1993 restoration to a three-member body, tensions arose between the then-Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners over the extent of the CEC's authority relative to the other members. The CEC's claim to primacy or a superior status over the ECs was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Key Details
- Decided by the Supreme Court on 14 July 1995, the case held that the CEC and the two Election Commissioners are equal in status and power within the Commission; the CEC functions only as "first among equals" for administrative and chairing purposes, not as a superior authority who can overrule the other two.
- The Court upheld the statutory provision that, where there is a difference of opinion among the three members, the matter is decided according to the opinion of the majority — the "one plus two" rule, under which the CEC's vote counts the same as each EC's vote, and two members can outvote the CEC.
- The judgment rejected the argument that treating majority rule as binding on the CEC was arbitrary or violated Article 14, holding it consistent with the collective, coequal character the Commission had been given since 1993.
The "one plus two" principle from this case remains the operative rule today for resolving internal Commission disagreements, and is the direct institutional lineage for any current reporting on divisions among sitting Commission members.
- ECI established: 25 January 1950, as a single-member body (first CEC: Sukumar Sen).
- First expansion to a multi-member (three-member) Commission: 16 October 1989, formalised via the Election Commissioner (Amendment) Act, 1989.
- Reversion to single-member body: 1 January 1990.
- Restoration to a three-member Commission: 1 October 1993 — the structure that continues today.
- S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India: decided 24 July 1991; held that appointing additional ECs (beyond the mandatory CEC) is discretionary, not obligatory, under Article 324.
- T.N. Seshan v. Union of India: decided 14 July 1995; established that the CEC and ECs are equal in status, with majority rule ("one plus two") governing internal disagreement.