The Election Commission of India (ECI) has formally invoked Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, as part of its defense in the Supreme Court. The move comes in response to a petition seeking to restrict the powers of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, effectively placing the statutory framework governing the internal operations of the poll body under judicial scrutiny.
In a counter-affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the ECI challenged the claims of unilateral decision-making. The Commission argued that any attempt to restrain the CEC would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 18, which dictates how the multi-member constitutional body is required to conduct its business and manage its responsibilities.
The controversy stems from allegations regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Petitioners have contended that significant decisions were made by the CEC despite receiving objections from the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Reports have suggested that the two commissioners raised objections on record at least 14 times over a 10-month period, citing issues such as new voter registration processes, access to the ERONET database, and work allocation.
Section 18, titled ‘Disposal Of Business’, serves as the foundation for the ECI’s internal procedures. According to the Act, the Commission is directed to transact its business unanimously as far as possible. Section 18(1) permits the Commission to regulate its own procedures and allocate work among the CEC and other Election Commissioners, provided such regulations are decided upon unanimously. Section 18(2) further clarifies that while consensus is the preferred approach, disagreements are to be settled through the opinion of the majority.
Addressing the allegations of unilateral action, the ECI clarified in its affidavit that the three specific SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were passed with unanimous approval. The commission distinguished between the informal exchange of queries or observations among members and the formal act of decision-making. It stated that official decisions were reached only after thorough deliberations, with relevant files circulated among all three members for their consideration and subsequent implementation through the ECI Secretariat.
The Commission further noted that the counter-affidavit itself had received the unanimous support of all three members. It dismissed the petitioner's claims, characterizing them as being based on media reports rather than substantiated material, and reiterated that the ECI has consistently adhered to the statutory requirements laid out in the 2023 Act. The legal proceedings remain focused on whether the actions attributed to the Commission align with the collective decision-making process mandated by law.
As the case progresses, the Supreme Court is expected to evaluate the extent to which the CEC can function independently versus the requirements for collective concurrence under the 2023 Act. The interpretation of Section 18 remains central to determining how disagreements among members are recorded and resolved, a matter that holds significant implications for the future operational transparency of India's election management body.
Comments