Can the Chief Election Commissioner Act Alone? Supreme Court Hears Pleas on How the Election Commission Decides
The Supreme Court began hearing two petitions (formal requests to a court) that question whether the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, used powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana is hearing the pleas. They followed a media report that the two Election Commissioners had formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists.
One plea asks the Court to suspend the CEC until the case is decided, and to let the two Election Commissioners run the Commission jointly in the meantime. It also asks that any vacancy be filled on the advice of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.
The second plea relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which says the majority view wins when the members disagree. It asks the Court to declare decisions taken without the full Commission's agreement "void ab initio" (invalid from the very start).
The pleas give examples: a change to Form 6 (the form a new voter fills to get onto the voter list) made through software without amending the election rules; 97 eligible voters in Goa who could not be restored; and over 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the ECI's name in West Bengal against voters restored by judicial officers.
The ECI has said that different views are a normal part of discussion in any institution, and that all its orders are legally valid and follow set procedures.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): The Multi-Member Election Commission
This 1995 Supreme Court judgment settled how a multi-member Election Commission must work. The Court upheld the law that made the Commission a body of three: one CEC and two Election Commissioners. It said the CEC is only "first among equals" (primus inter pares), not the boss of the other two. When the members cannot agree, the decision is taken by majority, and the CEC can be outvoted.
The petitioners argue that if two of the three members objected and the CEC still issued orders, the majority rule settled in the Seshan case and written into Section 18 was not followed. The Court will have to decide whether the CEC can issue orders in the Commission's name on his own, and what happens to orders made that way.
Appointment and Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners
The Election Commission is led by a CEC and, at present, two Election Commissioners. Article 324 of the Constitution lets the President appoint them, under a law made by Parliament. That law is the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The rules for removing them are very different for the CEC and for the other two, and this matters a lot in the present case.
The petitioners ask the Court to suspend the CEC and to have vacancies filled by a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India. This touches two sensitive points: the strong removal protection the Constitution gives the CEC, and the ongoing debate over whether the executive has too large a role in selecting election commissioners.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
An electoral roll is the official list of voters for a constituency. A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a very detailed check in which this list is rebuilt almost from scratch. Booth Level Officers go from house to house, collect forms from every voter, and verify them. The ECI orders an SIR using its power to prepare and supervise voter lists.
The orders under challenge relate to how the SIR was run: the extra details added to Form 6, the restoration of voters in Goa, and appeals against restored voters in West Bengal. The petitioners claim these were issued without the other two members' approval, so the case links the SIR to the question of how the Commission must take decisions.
- Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in the Election Commission
- Section 18, CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023: decisions unanimous as far as possible; otherwise majority view prevails
- T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (14 July 1995): CEC is first among equals; majority rule upheld
- Commission permanently multi-member since October 1993
- Selection Committee (2023 Act): PM, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM
- Anoop Baranwal (2023) interim committee included the Chief Justice of India
- CEC removable only like a Supreme Court judge (Article 324(5)); ECs removable only on the CEC's recommendation
- At least 14 formal objections reported over 10 months; over 16.10 lakh appeals alleged in West Bengal; 97 voters in Goa
- SIR basis: Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950