The Supreme Court has consistently favoured a collegial Election Commission over a CEC-centric one. Examine the rationale and assess whether the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 adequately secures it.

The 2026 allegations of unilateral conduct against CEC Gyanesh Kumar [1] have revived a question the Supreme Court settled long ago. The Election Commission (EC) is a collegial body, not the CEC's personal office. The 2023 Act accepts this in principle but only partly secures it in practice.

Rationale behind the Court's preference

• Internal checks: In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991), the Court held that the EC's "exclusive and uncontrolled" powers could not be left to one person without violating democratic rule [1].
• No ornamental members: A CEC who treats his word as final would make the other ECs "non-functional or ornamental" [1].
• Institution over individual: The T.N. Seshan Constitution Bench upheld the multi-member EC. It accepted that a wise individual might resist pressure. Even so, it held that powers with "virtually no checks and balances" should not rest with one person [1].
• Accountability gap: A body "accountable to none" outside itself needs checks from within [1].

Assessment of the 2023 Act

Gains

• The Act's Section 18 reportedly reflects the spirit of these judgments [1].
• A statutory Selection Committee that includes the Leader of Opposition replaces appointment by the executive alone [2].

Gaps

• Unequal removal protection: The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, but ECs can be removed on the CEC's recommendation [2]. An EC who disagrees may simply go along with the CEC to keep the post. That is exactly the risk Dhanoa described. Anoop Baranwal (2023) left this parity issue to Parliament [2].
• Executive majority in selection: The committee is the PM, a Cabinet Minister and the LoP (a 2:1 government majority). This replaced the CJI, whom Anoop Baranwal had placed on the panel [2]. The committee can also act with a seat vacant [2].
• Pay: Pay was earlier linked to a Supreme Court judge's under the 1991 Act. It is now linked to the Cabinet Secretary's, which the executive decides [2].
• The Act also departs from the Goswami Committee (1990) and Law Commission (2015), which wanted non-executive voices in selection [2].

On balance, the Act puts collegiality into law but leaves the members insecure. A collegial EC needs members who are securely placed and independently chosen. Parliament should amend Article 324 so that ECs get the same removal protection as the CEC [2]. It should restore a neutral member such as the CJI to the selection panel, re-link pay to a Supreme Court judge's, and set clear majority and recorded-dissent rules. These steps would turn the Court's collegial vision into a working guarantee of free and fair elections.