Three Commissioners, One Commission: How the Election Commission of India Decides

YLA Electoral Desk · Adv. Rajesh Tekale · Yeshwant Legal Associates · 17 October 2026

Why this is in the news

On 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on two petitions: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 1246/2026) and Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India (W.P.(Crl.) 401/2026). They followed a newspaper report, published on 23 September, that two Election Commissioners had recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months on steps in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The petitions allege that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) took those decisions in the name of the Commission despite the objections.

At that hearing, the bench declined to suspend the CEC without hearing the other side. It observed that the Court cannot pass an order solely on newspaper reports, and that if the CEC were suspended, the working of the Commission would stall. The Chief Justice said, "There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo." On 15 October 2026, the Court also issued notice on a petition by Opposition leaders that raises concerns about the same kind of decision-making.

The Election Commission has said that its decisions were unanimous and that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation before a final decision. These are allegations in pending cases. The Court has decided nothing on them.

What Article 324 says

Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission.

Article 324(2) provides that the Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President fixes from time to time. Appointments are made by the President, subject to any law made by Parliament. Article 324(3) says that when other Commissioners are appointed, the CEC "shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission".

Article 324(5) deals with tenure and protection. Subject to law made by Parliament, conditions of service and tenure are as the President determines by rule. The CEC cannot be removed except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and the CEC's conditions of service cannot be varied to his disadvantage after appointment. Any other Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC.

Two points follow. First, the Constitution describes the CEC as "Chairman", not as the sole decision-maker. Second, it does not say how a multi-member Commission is to arrive at a decision. That is left to Parliament.

What the 2023 Act adds

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 fills that gap. Section 17 says the business of the Commission shall be transacted in accordance with the Act. Section 18 then provides:

• Section 18(1): the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for transaction of its business and allocate its business among the CEC and the other Election Commissioners.
• Section 18(2): all business shall, "as far as possible", be transacted unanimously, and if the CEC and the other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, it "shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority".

With three members, two can decide. As the Indian Express explainer puts it, the CEC chairs the Commission but all three members have one vote each.

The 1995 background: T.N. Seshan v. Union of India

The structure is not new. When the Commission became a three-member body in 1993, the then CEC, T.N. Seshan, challenged the appointment of two additional Commissioners and the related ordinance. In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, decided on 14 July 1995, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld a multi-member Commission.

The judgment dealt with an earlier statute (then Section 10 of the 1991 Act) that followed the same unanimity-then-majority scheme. The Court noted that the framers of the Constitution had stayed silent on how the Commission would transact its business, and that Parliament had stepped in. It recorded the hope that the Commission would take decisions "with one voice", but said that if that hope failed, the rule of majority must come into play.

On the Chairman's role, the Court said the function is to preside over meetings, preserve order, conduct the day's business and "ensure that precise decisions are taken and correctly recorded". It added that a Chairman may find it hard to carry colleagues if he treats them as subordinates. It also observed that a multi-member body works if its members cooperate and respect each other's views, and fails if they pull in opposite directions. Section 18 of the 2023 Act continues the same approach.

How decisions and dissent work in practice

Reporting based on Election Commission officials, including an Indian Express explainer, describes the practice as follows. The Commission meets regularly, often once or twice a week. Differing opinions on files are routine. Decisions are then taken unanimously or by majority. A Commissioner who disagrees with the majority can record a dissent note on the file.

Disagreement is not new. In 2019, then Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa recorded dissent on complaints of Model Code of Conduct violations, and later objected that his dissent was not being reflected in the final orders. He resigned in 2020. In 2009, then CEC N. Gopalaswami wrote to the President seeking the removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. Neither episode is a ruling on the present dispute.

The Commission's own position in the current matter draws a line between "observations" made during drafting and the final "decision" of the Commission. Whether a particular recorded objection is a formal dissent, a suggestion, or neither is a factual and legal question that only the file can answer.

Why the process matters

The Commission's decisions can affect the electoral roll, the forms citizens must fill in, and the conduct of polls. A decision taken outside the statutory method can be questioned as procedurally invalid, whatever its merits. Equally, the law does not require every internal view to prevail. It requires that the final decision be unanimous, or the opinion of the majority.

The Supreme Court has also signalled that the remedy depends on evidence. In the 5 October hearing, a judge asked whether the Court could conclude without hearing the respondents that all decisions were unilateral. The bench said that if records showed a decision was not taken as the law requires, it could be set aside. The Chief Justice also clarified that the Supreme Court has not approved the modified Form 6, a separate point from the one discussed here.

What remains undecided

• Whether any of the 14 reported decisions was in fact taken without unanimity or a majority, which depends on the Commission's files, notings and minutes.
• What legal weight a recorded objection carries when the final order is described as unanimous.
• What relief, if any, follows if a decision is found to be non-compliant. The petitions seek, among other things, production of records and an independent inquiry.
• The wider challenge to the appointment process under the 2023 Act. Counsel told the Court on 5 October that this is pending before a larger bench. It is a separate question from Section 18, which this article covers.

Key takeaways

• Article 324 creates the Election Commission as a body. The CEC chairs it, and the Constitution leaves the decision-making method to Parliament.
• In Seshan (1995), the Supreme Court read the CEC's role as presiding and conducting business, with the majority deciding if unanimity fails.
• Section 18(2) of the 2023 Act requires decisions to be unanimous "as far as possible", and otherwise by majority.
• The Supreme Court has issued notices in these matters but has made no finding on whether any decision breached the law. The outcome will turn on the Commission's records, not on press reports.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 324 (India Code): https://indiacode.ecourtsindia.com/constitution-of-india/article/324/
• Section 18, 2023 Act (India Code, official text): https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/view-casepdf?id=AC_CEN_3_20_00080_A2023-49_1704690560714&type=act
• LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar Ex Parte, Issues Notice On Plea Challenging ECI Decisions" (5 Oct 2026): https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-interim-plea-to-suspend-cec-gyanesh-kumars-issues-notice-on-plea-challenging-eci-decisions-553095
• Hindustan Times, "SC issues notice to EC, its chiefs on Oppn plea seeking inquiry" (16 Oct 2026): https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-issues-notice-to-ec-its-chiefs-on-oppn-plea-for-probe-into-electoral-irregularities-101792090881155.html
• The Indian Express, "When Election Commission members differed" (explainer, 11 Oct 2026): https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/election-commission-india-cec-election-commissioners-dissent-10894190/
• T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), Supreme Court of India: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/10707.pdf

Educational only. Nothing here is legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship.