In the Indian Constitution, part XV (Articles 324 to 329) deals with the Election Commission of India. It is an autonomous constitutional body responsible for conducting elections and has the power to administer the whole Election process at both central and state levels in India. Until 1989, the Election Commission was only headed by Chief Election Commissioner. It was then a one-member body until the President issued a notification to change its composition to a multi-member body in 1989. Later the President rescinded the notification in 1990 and again reverted the Election Commission to be a one-member body.

In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, the constitutional validity of the revocation of notification was challenged. The Supreme Court of India observed that to prevent the holiness of elections, it is very important to stop the concentration of power and authority on one hand. So, the constitutional validity of the notification is considered valid by the Supreme Court.

In 1991, The Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (condition of service) Act, 1991.

T.N. Seshan v. Union of India and Ors[1].
Facts:
T.N. Seshan, the former chief election Commissioner (EC) of India. He challenged the constitutional validity of the chief election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of the Servant) Amendment Act, 1993. This Act introduced a multi-member Election Commission and appointed Election Commissioners alongside the Chief Election Commission. According to the connection of T.N. Seshan, the independent authority and power of CEC were diluted and the decision-making process must be conducted by the majority rule.

Issues:

1. Whether the formation of the Election Commission as a multi-member body through the 1993 Act violates the supremacy and independence of the Chief Election Commissioner.
2. Whether the Act and Article 324 was ultra vires of the constitution?
    

Petitioner contention:
The T.N. Seshan contended that according to article 324, the Chief Election Commissioner to function independently without interference from the other Election Commissioners and the government. He also claimed that this Act violated the independence of the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner and made the decision-making process must be conducted by the majority rule.

Respondent's contention (Union of India):
According to Article 324(2), the Election Commissioner shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by the Parliament, be made by the President.

So, article 324 explicitly allowed for the formation of a multi-member body and it gives the power to enact laws on the matter of Elections to the Parliament. So, the Parliament is competent enough to pass the 1993 Act. This was to prevent arbitrary decision-making and any abusiveness of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Judgement:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (conditions of service) Amendment Act, 1993, and the power of Article 324 for the appointment of multiple Election Commissioners and does not vest all power in one hand of the chief election Commissioner. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the independence of the Election Commission was pressured in the 1993 Act. This Act also ensures the balance of power as the decisions should be made in a majority rule. Supporting the democratic functions of the commission.

Conclusion:
The judgment of this landmark case accepted the legitimacy of the 1993 Act and the functioning of the Election Commission as a multi-member body. The independence, accountability, and collective Responsibility of this Election Commission are perfectly balanced, and the democratic nature of the Election Commission is preserved.

Written By:

• Viji .M
• Rashmi Virutha. S

End Notes:

1. 1995, AIR 852, 1995 scc (4) 611