CEC and Election Commissioners as Equals: What the Supreme Court Said About Collegial Functioning
A recent report said the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded written objections at least 14 times over about 10 months to decisions taken in the Election Commission.
The objections were reportedly about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, additions and deletions of voter names, changes to Form 6 (the voter registration form) and central control of electoral roll databases.
The Election Commission said that differing views are a normal part of internal discussion and that its decisions were finally taken unanimously.
The episode has revived a 1995 Supreme Court judgment, T.N. Seshan v. Union of India. The court said the Commission must work as a collegial body in which ECs have a real say. It warned that if the CEC's word were always final, the ECs would become "non-functional or ornamental".
Under the current law (Section 18 of the 2023 Act), the Commission should decide unanimously as far as possible, and by majority when members differ.
Appointment and Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners
The Election Commission of India is headed by a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and, at present, two Election Commissioners (ECs). Under Article 324(2), the President appoints them, and since the 2023 Act this is done on the advice of a Selection Committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister. Their removal rules are in Article 324(5). The CEC has much stronger protection from removal than the ECs.
The unequal removal rule is at the centre of the debate. Because the CEC's recommendation is enough to remove an EC, critics worry that ECs may hesitate to disagree. The Supreme Court, however, has said this power exists to protect ECs, not to make them subordinate to the CEC.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): The Multi-Member Election Commission
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.
The reported objections by the two ECs raise the exact question Seshan answered: the CEC cannot treat the ECs as advisers whose views can be ignored. Under Section 18 of the 2023 Act, if two members disagree with a decision, their majority view should prevail.
- Reported objections by the two ECs: at least 14 over about 10 months
- Election Commission: 1 CEC + 2 ECs (three-member body since 1 October 1993)
- T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): five judges; multi-member Commission and majority rule upheld
- S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991): abolition of EC posts upheld
- Article 324(5): CEC removed like a Supreme Court judge; ECs only on the CEC's recommendation
- Section 18, CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023: majority decides when members differ