"The independence of the Election Commission rests as much on its internal collegiality as on its security of tenure." Discuss in light of recent controversies over the revision of electoral rolls.

Article 324 gives a multi-member Election Commission (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" of elections. Its independence rests on two pillars. The external one is security of tenure, which shields it from the executive. The internal one is collegiality, which stops any single member from becoming the Commission. The Opposition petition alleging that the CEC acted unilaterally during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [1] shows that the internal pillar matters as much as the external one.

Security of tenure: necessary but incomplete

• The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge: for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, by a special majority in both Houses [3][4].
• Election Commissioners (ECs), however, can be removed on the CEC's recommendation. The SC (2023) said that giving ECs equal protection is for Parliament to decide, and this needs a constitutional amendment [2].
• The 2023 Act's selection committee (PM, LoP, Cabinet Minister) gives the executive a 2:1 majority [2][4]. This weakens independence at the point of appointment.

Collegiality: the internal safeguard

• Commission business must be transacted unanimously where possible, otherwise by majority [3]. The CEC is first among equals, not the sole authority.
• Yet an EC who dissents can be removed on the recommendation of the very CEC they oppose [2]. Dissent is least protected exactly where it matters most.

Lessons from the SIR controversy

• The petition alleges that unilateral decisions by the CEC led to voter deletions and changes. It seeks disclosure of ECI records and an independent probe [1].
• Wrongful deletion threatens universal adult franchise (Art. 326), and it falls hardest on migrants and the poor.
• Because the CEC is hard to remove, the burden of accountability shifts to the courts. The SC Registry numbered the plea within 24 hours [1].
• Counterpoint: revising the rolls is meant to remove dead and duplicate entries. The allegations remain unproven until the Court examines the records.

Way forward

• Amend Art. 324(5) to give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC [2].
• Create a neutral selection panel, as the Goswami Committee, NCRWC and the Law Commission's 255th Report recommended [2][5].
• Record minutes with dissent notes. Change forms only through notified amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Publish reasons for every deletion.

Tenure protects the Commission from outside pressure; collegiality protects it from capture within. The SIR dispute shows that either one alone is not enough. Equal protection for all Commissioners, a balanced appointment process and transparent internal decisions would make the ECI the neutral umpire the Constitution intended. This would also advance SDG 16.7 on inclusive, participatory decision-making.