SC to Hear Pleas on Election Commission
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court is to hear on Monday, 5 October 2026 two Public Interest Litigation petitions, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, before a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The petitions allege that 14 decisions were taken in the Election Commission's name between October 2025 and August 2026 without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They seek a declaration that the Chief Election Commissioner cannot decide such matters alone. These are allegations in the petitions, and the Court has not ruled on them.
- The case turns on how a multi-member Election Commission decides. Section 18(2) of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 says its business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, and by majority where members differ.
Key Points
- Two PILs will be heard by a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant on 5 October 2026.
- The petitions allege that 14 decisions between October 2025 and August 2026 were taken without the concurrence of two Election Commissioners.
- They ask for a declaration that Election Commission decisions cannot be taken unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner.
- They also seek production of the Commission's original records and a judicial inquiry headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- Separately, on 23 September 2026 the Supreme Court referred a challenge to the 2023 selection-panel law to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Key Terminologies
- Article 324
- The constitutional provision that vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. Clause (2) says the Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such other Election Commissioners as the President fixes.
- Majority Rule in Section 18(2)
- A statutory rule that the Commission's business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. Where the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners differ, the matter is decided by the majority.
- Selection Committee
- The panel that advises the President on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners. The 2023 Act placed the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on it.
- Public Interest Litigation
- A petition filed in the public interest, by someone who need not be personally affected, to seek enforcement of legal or constitutional duties.
Key Issues
- Decision-Making Rule: Section 18(2) of the 2023 Act says business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, and by majority if members differ. The petitions argue the Chief Election Commissioner cannot decide such matters alone.
- Unequal Safeguards: Under Article 324(5), the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the Chief Election Commissioner's recommendation, so their protection is weaker.
- Selection Panel Dispute: The Anoop Baranwal Bench in March 2023 set a panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. In December 2023 Parliament replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister.
- Appearance of Independence: Justice Dipankar Datta said in May 2026 that the Commission must not only be independent but appear to be. The Attorney General replied that courts should not strike down laws on hypothetical bias.
Key Implications
Positive/Pros/Merits
- Procedural Clarity: Section 18(1) lets the Commission regulate its own procedure only by unanimous decision. A ruling could clarify how differing views are recorded and how a majority decision is reached.
- Multi-Member Design: Article 324(2) allows the President to fix the number of other Election Commissioners. The case tests whether a collective body works as that design intends.
- Basic Structure Link: The Supreme Court has treated Election Commission independence as part of free and fair elections, a basic structure idea, as the Tribune reported in May 2026.
- Authoritative Guidance: Both judges on 23 September 2026 asked the Chief Justice to constitute a Constitution Bench at the earliest. Article 145(3) sends substantial constitutional questions to five judges.
Negative/Cons/Demerits
- Long Pendency: The 2023 Act was enacted in December 2023, and the Court refused a stay on 21 March 2024. The challenge reached a split verdict only on 23 September 2026.
- Allegation, Not Finding: The 14-decision claim comes from reports cited in the petitions, which is why they seek the original records. Until the Court examines them, the claim remains untested.
- Law-Making and Review: Parliament replaced the Chief Justice on the panel nine months after Anoop Baranwal, so the case also tests how far courts can shape laws that Parliament later changes.
- Divided Judicial View: Justice Datta said a Cabinet Minister on the panel fails to provide an independent counterweight, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said the questions need five judges.
Director's Perspective
- Record each major Commission decision as unanimous or by majority, with a short note of dissent where members differ, as Section 18(2) contemplates.
- Use the unanimous power in Section 18(1) to frame a written procedure for circulating agendas, recording dissent and issuing decisions in the Commission's name.
- Consider extending the Chief Election Commissioner's judge-like removal protection to other Election Commissioners, since Article 324(5) gives them weaker safeguards.
- List the Constitution Bench on the selection panel early, so uncertainty over how the Commission is constituted does not linger into the next election cycle.
This case tests how a multi-member constitutional body decides, not any individual. Section 18 sets a clear rule of unanimity where possible and majority where not, and Article 324(5) protects the Chief Election Commissioner more strongly than other Commissioners. The allegations are untested, and the selection-panel challenge is still pending before a Constitution Bench. In a Mains answer, credit the statutory rule and the courts' role in guarding independence, then conclude that the Commission's credibility rests on decisions that are visibly collective, recorded and open to review.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Supreme Court hearing PILs on the Chief Election Commissioner?
Two PILs allege that 14 decisions were taken in the Election Commission's name between October 2025 and August 2026 without the concurrence of two Election Commissioners. The hearing is set for 5 October 2026, and the Court has not ruled on the allegations.
What does Section 18 of the 2023 Act say?
Section 18(1) says the Commission may regulate its procedure by unanimous decision. Section 18(2) says business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, and by majority where the Commissioners differ.
What was decided in the Anoop Baranwal case?
In March 2023 a five-judge Bench directed that the President appoint Election Commissioners on the advice of a panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Parliament replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister in December 2023.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 Article 324(2) says the Election Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such other Election Commissioners as the President fixes.
The number of other Commissioners is fixed by the President, subject to any law made by Parliament.
2 Under Article 324(5), every Election Commissioner is removable only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge.
Only the Chief Election Commissioner has this protection. Other Commissioners can be removed only on the Chief Election Commissioner's recommendation.
3 Section 18(2) of the 2023 Act provides that differences among the Commissioners are decided according to the opinion of the majority.
Business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, and by majority where members differ.