SC's 1991 Warning on a Dominant CEC Resonates Amid Panel Friction
Supreme Court's 1991 ruling warned that a CEC acting as superior would make Election Commissioners non-functional, a concern revived by current friction in the poll panel.
Nearly four decades ago, the Supreme Court cautioned that a Chief Election Commissioner who conducts himself as superior and treats his word as final would reduce the other Election Commissioners to being "non-functional or ornamental". The observation, made in S.S. Dhanoa versus Union of India (1991), has acquired fresh relevance amid allegations of unilateral conduct, authoritarianism and subversion directed at CEC Gyanesh Kumar, pointing to friction within the poll panel.
The court had held that vesting the "exclusive and uncontrolled" powers of the Election Commission of India in a single individual would offend democratic rule. A Constitution Bench in the T.N. Seshan case, which upheld a multi-member ECI, drew on the Dhanoa reasoning to hold that vast discretionary powers with virtually no checks and balances should not rest with one person, and that it was desirable for more than one individual to share in their exercise.
The Bench reasoned that while a single wise individual might withstand the pulls and pressures that many others could not, it is prudent to entrust the affairs of the ECI to more than one hand, given that the institution wields vast powers and is accountable to none. The court also held that Election Commissioners are indeed part of the Election Commission and must have a say in decision-making, rejecting the argument that their role was limited to tendering advice to the CEC.
The court observed that the CEC, as chairman of a multi-member body, must conduct himself at meetings in a manner that wins the confidence of his colleagues and carries them along. This, it noted, would prove difficult if the CEC treated other members as subordinates. The ECI is not the only multi-member body, the court pointed out, citing the Public Service Commission and the National Commission for SC/ST, which also function by majority rule. A multi-member ECI, the court said, must work in cooperation, appreciating and respecting each other's points of view.
The spirit of that reasoning is reflected in Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which requires the ECI to conduct its business unanimously or by majority consensus.