Discuss whether collective decision-making by the Election Commission strengthens its institutional independence.

The Election Commission of India, a single-member body until 1993, is today a three-member Commission whose business "is to be conducted unanimously", with differences settled by majority [1]. Collective functioning is therefore a genuine but partial safeguard: it disciplines internal decision-making without securing independence at its two weakest points — appointment and removal.

How collective decision-making strengthens independence

• Ends one-man rule: majority decision prevents a single Chief Election Commissioner from ordering a nationwide exercise alone [1].
• Procedural legitimacy for large exercises: revisions such as the Special Intensive Revision, grounded in Article 324 and Section 21, RP Act 1950 [3] and covering about 51 crore electors across 9 States and 3 UTs in Phase-II [4], gain credibility when attributed to the full Commission rather than one officer.
• Internal deliberation allows dissent to be voiced before an order issues, reducing arbitrariness.

Why it is not sufficient

• Appointment is government-weighted: the Selection Committee is the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition — two of three from the government of the day, which PRS notes may undermine ECI independence [1][2].
• Departure from judicial direction: in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) the Supreme Court held the appointment must not rest solely with the Executive and included the Chief Justice of India; the 2023 Act replaced him with a Minister [2].
• Unequal tenure protection: the CEC is removable only like a Supreme Court judge, while an Election Commissioner is removable on the CEC's recommendation [1] — so dissent is costlier for two of the three members.
• Unanimity is a statutory default, not proof of care; no dissent is required to be published [1].

Collective decision-making thus improves the process of decision-making but cannot by itself guarantee independent decision-makers. Restoring a non-partisan voice to the Selection Committee, as the Supreme Court envisaged, and extending the CEC's removal safeguard to Election Commissioners would let "the full Commission decided" carry its full constitutional weight, reinforcing free and fair elections under Article 324.