The Election Commission is a multi-member body, yet its collegiality is contested. Examine the legal framework for resolving differences among its members.

Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in an Election Commission comprising the CEC and such other Election Commissioners as the President may fix [3]. Recent reports of objections recorded by ECs show that the law settles how differences are counted, but not how collegiality is secured.

The statutory mechanism for resolving differences

• Article 324 supplies only composition; the procedure for transacting business comes from the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023) [2].
• The Act requires business to be transacted unanimously as far as possible; where the CEC and ECs differ, the matter is decided by majority opinion [2].
• Consequently the CEC has no veto or casting vote — one vote each. A decision carried by the majority remains legally valid even if an EC has recorded a written objection [2].

Why collegiality remains contested

• Removal asymmetry: the CEC is removable like a Supreme Court judge, but an EC only on the CEC's own recommendation — sitting uneasily with T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), which treated ECs as at par with the CEC [1].
• Service conditions: salary is now linked to the Cabinet Secretary, fixed by the government, rather than to a Supreme Court judge's salary fixed by Parliament [1].
• Narrow eligibility: appointment is confined to Secretary-rank officers, despite the Commission's quasi-judicial functions [1].
• Appointment process: the Selection Committee of PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition leaves a government majority [1].
• No disclosure duty: orders issue in the Commission's name; internal positions stay unpublished, so press reports substitute for the record — costly in a nationwide exercise like SIR across 16 States and 3 UTs [3].

The majority rule is legally sound; the deficit lies in protection and transparency. Publishing each member's position after a fixed interval — as the RBI's Monetary Policy Committee does on the 14th day, with every vote and a written reason [4] — alongside parity in removal and service conditions, would make dissent both safe and visible, strengthening the Commission's constitutional mandate of free and fair elections.