Over the past few weeks, the Election Commission of India (ECI), India’s constitutional body responsible for conducting and supervising elections in India, has been facing growing scrutiny amid protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) resignation and reports of disagreements within the three-member poll panel over electoral roll decisions.
But what happens when all three Election Commissioners disagree?
The question of how the Election Commissioners take decisions comes at a time of controversy surrounding the poll panel. According to an Indian Express report published in September, two of the three members of the Election Commission, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, raised objections at least 14 times in the last 10 months regarding decisions related to the rollout of the Special Intensive Revision () exercise.
Defending its decision-making process, the ECI, in response to the report, stated that differing views and observations within an institution are a routine part of deliberation before a final decision is made.
According to the ECI’s website, “The Commission transacts its business by holding regular meetings and also by circulation of papers. All Election Commissioners have equal say in the decision-making of the Commission.”
Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 states that the ECI may unanimously determine how its business will be conducted and distributed among its members. It also says that the Commission should, as far as possible, take decisions unanimously, while any differences among the Commissioners should be resolved through a majority view.
The provision is also relevant to a petition that cites the 1995 judgment in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India to contend that the CEC is primus inter pares, or first among equals.
PDT Achary, former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, spoke to LiveMint on the issue. According to Achary, there is only one provision in the law, which says that either the decision should be unanimous or, if unanimity is not possible, it must be by majority. He elaborated that if all three Election Commissioners are in disagreement and a decision by majority cannot be reached, there will be no decision on the matter.
While Section 18 provides for majority decisions when the Commissioners differ, it does not specifically address a situation where all three take different positions. According to Achary, the CEC does not have a casting vote or any additional authority to resolve such a deadlock.
The is designed to function as a collegiate, multi-member body, with the two Election Commissioners sharing decision-making powers with the CEC.
In 1995, then Chief Election Commissioner T N Seshan challenged the 1993 law. The Supreme Court rejected his challenge, holding that once other Election Commissioners are appointed, the ECI functions as a multi-member body and the CEC does not have overriding or veto powers.
