Supreme Court Examines Constitutional Validity of Ordinance and Act Amending Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991. The Court Interpreted Article 324 of the Constitution and Issued Interim Order Directing Chief Election Commissioner to Retain Overall Control Pending Final Decision.

Constitutional challenge to the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 and subsequent Act, which altered the composition, powers, and decision-making process of the Election Commission.

The petitioners sought a declaration that the Ordinance/Act was unconstitutional and void, and a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications fixing the number of Election Commissioners at two and the appointments of Mr. M.S. Gill and Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners.

The President promulgated an Ordinance on 1 October 1993 amending the 1991 Act to add provisions for transaction of business of the Election Commission by majority decision and to equate the Chief Election Commissioner with other Election Commissioners. The petitioners challenged these changes as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

An ad-interim order dated 15 November 1993 directed that the Chief Election Commissioner shall remain in complete overall control of the Commission's work, and that only the CEC could issue instructions to staff and outside agencies. By order dated 15 December 1993, the Court allowed all State Governments to be heard through counsel and directed that the interim order continue, and the matters be placed before a Constitution Bench.

Whether the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 (later Act No.4 of 1994) is constitutionally valid. Whether the President can fix the number of Election Commissioners and appoint them under Article 324(2) of the Constitution. Whether the amended Act's provisions for transaction of business of the Election Commission by majority decision violate Article 324 or the status of the Chief Election Commissioner. Interpretation of Article 324 clauses (1), (2), (3), and (5) regarding superintendence, direction and control of elections and conditions of service.

The business of the Election Commission shall be transacted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 10(1) The Election Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for transaction of the business as also allocation of the business amongst the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (2) Save as provided in sub section (1) all business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the Chief Election Commissioner differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority. Until further orders, to ensure smooth and effective working of the Commission and also to avoid confusion both in the administration as well as in the electoral process, we direct that the Chief Election Commissioner shall remain in complete overall control of the Commission’s work. He may ascertain the views of other Commissioners or such of them as he chooses, on the issues that may come up before the Commission from time to time. However, he will not be bound their views. It is also made clear that the Chief Election Commissioner alone will be entitled to issue instructions to the Commission’s staff as well as to the outside agencies and that no other Commissioner will issue such instructions. 324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission.-- (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every state and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).

The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated on 1 October 1993. On the same day, the President fixed the number of Election Commissioners at two and appointed Mr. M.S. Gill and Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners. Cho S. Ramaswamy filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.791 of 1993 on 13 October 1993 challenging the Ordinance and appointments. T.N. Seshan filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.805 of 1993 on 26 October 1993. Two other writ petitions were also filed. On 15 November 1993, the Court admitted the writ petitions and passed an ad-interim order. On 15 December 1993, the Court directed that all State Governments be heard through counsel, the interim order continue, and the matters be placed before a Constitution Bench. The Ordinance became Act No.4 of 1994 on 4 January 1994.

• Constitution of India: Article 123, Article 324
• Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
• Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance No.32 of 1993): Amendments to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and insertion of Sections 9 and 10