T N Seshan v Union of India
Rule established
A multi-member Election Commission is consistent with Article 324(2). The Chief Election Commissioner is not superior in authority to the other Election Commissioners and they are not subordinate to him; his position under Article 324(3) is that of Chairman, and business is transacted by unanimity or by majority.
Facts
- From 1950 the Election Commission had functioned for most of its existence as a single member body consisting only of the Chief Election Commissioner.
- The President fixed the number of other Election Commissioners at two, and two Election Commissioners were appointed.
- Provision was made by ordinance and then by amending legislation for the transaction of business of the Commission, including that all business should as far as possible be transacted unanimously and that in case of difference of opinion the matter should be decided according to the opinion of the majority.
- The Chief Election Commissioner challenged the arrangement, contending that Art.324 established him as the head of the Commission with the other Commissioners in a subordinate position.
- He relied in particular on Art.324(3), under which he acts as Chairman, and on Art.324(5), under which other Commissioners may be removed only on his recommendation, as indicating a hierarchy.
- He argued that reducing him to one vote among three impaired the independence and effectiveness of his office.
Issue
- Whether a multi-member Election Commission is consistent with Art.324, and what the relationship is between the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners.
Held
- The arrangement was upheld. Article 324(2) expressly contemplates the appointment of other Election Commissioners, so a multi-member body is not merely permissible but envisaged, and it operates as a safeguard against the concentration of enormous power in a single person. The Chief Election Commissioner is not superior in authority: Art.324(3) makes him Chairman, and a chairman presides and coordinates but does not command. The other Commissioners are not subordinate to him, and business is properly transacted by unanimity or, failing that, by majority, so the Chief Election Commissioner may be outvoted. On Art.324(5) the Court held that the requirement of his recommendation before another Commissioner is removed is a protection for that Commissioner, interposing the head of the Commission between him and the executive, and is not an indication that he holds office at the Chief Election Commissioner's pleasure or under his control.
Ratio Decidendi
The office of Chairman in a collegiate body carries functions of convening, presiding and giving direction to business, not a casting authority over substance; had the Constitution intended a hierarchy it would have said so, and instead it provided for the appointment of Commissioners in terms that assume equality of function. The reading of Art.324(5) follows from its purpose: the clause names the Chief Election Commissioner because he is the person least likely to act at the behest of the government of the day, so the provision shields the Commissioner rather than subjecting him.
How to use it in an exam
- The authority on the internal structure of the Election Commission. State the three propositions: a multi-member Commission is valid, the Chief Election Commissioner is Chairman and not a superior, and business is by majority.
- The point examiners look for is the correct reading of Art.324(5), which is protective rather than hierarchical.
- Note the asymmetry in removal that survives: the Chief Election Commissioner may be removed only in the like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, whereas an Election Commissioner may be removed on the Chief Election Commissioner's recommendation. That difference is the standard criticism of the scheme, and it was among the matters the Court later addressed in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India 2023, which recommended that the same protection be extended.
- Use in problems where the Chief Election Commissioner is outvoted, or where the executive attempts to remove a Commissioner without his recommendation.
- Read with Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner 1978 on the nature of the Commission's powers, and note that a multi-member body exercising the wide reservoir power in Art.324 is itself an argument for collective decision making.
Source
Source: (1995) 4 SCC 611; AIR 1995 SC 1420; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the authority on the internal structure of the Election Commission; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.