What Is Section 18 Of CEC Act, Provision At Heart Of Poll Panel's Defence In Supreme Court?

What is Section 18 of the CEC Act? Here's all about the law on Election Commission decision-making and why the ECI cited it in the Supreme Court.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has invoked Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to oppose a plea seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, bringing the statutory provision governing the poll panel’s internal decision-making into focus.

In its counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court, the ECI argued that restraining the CEC would run contrary to Section 18, which lays down how the multi-member constitutional body must transact its business.

The Commission has maintained that its decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unanimously and denied allegations that the CEC acted unilaterally.

The dispute has brought renewed attention to the distinction between the CEC’s role as head of the Commission and the collective decision-making powers vested in the poll panel.

What Is Section 18 Of The CEC Act?

Section 18 of the 2023 Act, titled ‘Disposal Of Business’, establishes the statutory framework for the Election Commission’s internal functioning. It contains two key provisions governing how the Commission makes decisions and allocates responsibilities among its members.

Under Section 18(1), the Commission may regulate the procedure for transacting its business and allocating work among the CEC and other Election Commissioners through a unanimous decision.

Section 18(2) provides that all business of the Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously.

If the CEC and the other Election Commissioners differ in their opinions on a matter, the decision must be taken according to the opinion of the majority.

In effect, the provision provides for consensus as the preferred mode of decision-making while prescribing majority decision-making when the members disagree.

It also requires unanimity for decisions regulating the Commission’s business procedures and the allocation of work among its members.

The provision does not prescribe an absolute unanimity requirement for every decision. Instead, it expressly provides for majority decision-making in cases of disagreement.

Why Section 18 Is Central To The Supreme Court Case

The provision has assumed significance following allegations that important decisions connected with the SIR exercise were taken despite objections from the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The controversy gained momentum after The Indian Express reported in September 2026 that the two Commissioners had raised objections on record at least 14 times over 10 months concerning decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge.

The reported concerns included changes to the new voter registration process involving Form 6, access to the ERONET electoral roll database, work allocation within the Commission and decisions relating to electoral roll management.

The legal question arising from these allegations is whether decisions attributed to the Election Commission complied with the statutory process prescribed under Section 18, particularly where objections or differences of opinion were recorded by individual members.

The petition challenging the CEC’s functioning relies on the provision to argue that the Commission’s collective powers cannot be exercised by the CEC acting alone.

It seeks relief against decisions allegedly taken without the required concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Commissioners.

What The Election Commission Told The Supreme Court

In its counter-affidavit, the ECI rejected the allegations of unilateral decision-making and asserted that the three SIR orders issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were passed unanimously.

The Commission said that suggestions, observations and queries exchanged among its members or with officials during the decision-making process did not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the poll body under Section 18.

According to the affidavit, matters placed before the Commission were considered after deliberations, with files and relevant documents circulated among the CEC and the two Election Commissioners for approval. Decisions were recorded in official files and implemented through the ECI Secretariat.

The Commission also said that the counter-affidavit itself had received unanimous approval from all three members.

The ECI argued that the petition was based on a newspaper report and that the material cited by the petitioner did not establish the allegations made against the Commission.

It further contended that a direction restraining the CEC from functioning would be inconsistent with the statutory framework governing the Commission’s business.

The ECI has therefore sought dismissal of the petition, maintaining that the SIR orders were issued in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and applicable law.

What The Law Means For The CEC’s Powers

Section 18 places the emphasis on institutional decision-making rather than treating the Election Commission as a body whose decisions are determined solely by its head.

The provision distinguishes between the regulation of internal procedures and work allocation, which requires a unanimous decision under Section 18(1), and decisions on other matters, for which Section 18(2) provides for unanimity as far as possible and majority resolution when differences arise.

Consequently, the legal dispute is not simply about whether individual Commissioners expressed reservations during discussions. It also concerns whether those reservations amounted to a difference of opinion on a matter requiring a decision, and whether the procedure prescribed by law was followed.

The ECI’s position is that internal observations and queries should not be equated with formal decisions or proof that the Commission’s final orders lacked unanimity.

The petitioners, meanwhile, rely on the reported objections to question whether the statutory decision-making process was followed in the disputed matters.