Supreme Court warning on collegial Election Commission resurfaces amid panel tensions

A warning from India’s Supreme Court that a dominant Chief Election Commissioner could render other Election Commissioners ineffective has resurfaced amid reported tensions within the Election Commission of India. The warning came in the 1991 judgment in S.S. Dhanoa versus Union of India.

The court said that leaving the Election Commission’s broad and uncontrolled powers with one person would be inconsistent with democratic rule and stressed the value of a multi-member institution. The Constitution Bench judgment in the T.N. Seshan case later cited that reasoning while upholding a multi-member Election Commission.

It said that the Election Commissioners were part of the Commission and had to participate in decision-making, rejecting the idea that their role was limited to giving advice to the Chief Election Commissioner. The earlier judgment also said a Chief Election Commissioner, as chair of a multi-member body, should conduct meetings in a way that won the confidence of colleagues. Treating the other commissioners as subordinates, the court warned, would make cooperation difficult and could leave them non-functional or merely ornamental.

The principles are reflected in Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which requires the Commission to conduct its business unanimously or according to the majority view. The discussion follows allegations of unilateral conduct, authoritarianism and subversion involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The supplied material refers to those allegations and to calls for his resignation but does not provide his response or establish the truth of the claims.

The court has also compared the Election Commission with other multi-member public bodies, including Public Service Commissions and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Such institutions, it said, operate through cooperation, respect for differing views and majority-based decision-making. The earlier judgments therefore remain relevant to the question of how authority should be exercised inside India’s election management body, particularly where disputes arise over the role of its individual members.