NEW DELHI, October 5 — A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, conducted hearings on a clutch of petitions examining the collective administrative functioning and decision-making protocols within the multi-member Election Commission of India (ECI).
The petitions raised questions regarding consultative processes governing the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and recent software infrastructure rollouts, contending that institutional decisions must adhere strictly to statutory tripartite consensus among the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the two Election Commissioners (ECs).
Appearing for the respondent authorities, the Attorney General emphasized that operations inside Nirvachan Sadan function in full conformity with statutory guidelines under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 and historical transaction rules, where operational decisions reflect collegial deliberations or majority consensus. The bench scheduled further hearings, directing the submission of certified administrative guidelines.
Constitutional status of the Election Commission (Article 324), institutional parity among Commissioners, and landmark electoral jurisprudence are crucial themes in civil services examinations. Candidates should remember that in the landmark T.N. Seshan, CEC of India v. Union of India (1995) verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the CEC does not enjoy superior authority over Election Commissioners in decision-making, and all substantive commission rulings must be arrived at unanimously or by majority vote.