Constitutional body that runs Indian elections under Article 324: how its members are appointed and removed, how it enforces the Model Code of Conduct, and the court findings and party complaints on its decisions across eras.
A dossier is a fact file. It records what is on record and who said what; it does not give a verdict. It is not scored and earns or loses no party points. How dossiers are written.
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, the state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission. The Commission has had three members since 1993, a structure the Supreme Court upheld in 1995 [23]. Appointments were made by the President, without a parliamentary law, until the Supreme Court’s 2 March 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal set an interim committee including the Chief Justice [3]. Parliament then passed the 2023 Act, which put a Union Cabinet Minister in the Chief Justice’s place, and its validity is pending before the Supreme Court, which refused a stay in March 2024 [1][4][5]. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only as a Supreme Court judge can; other Commissioners only on the CEC’s recommendation [1]. Removal notices against the present CEC were submitted in 2026 and rejected by the presiding officers on 6 April, with a fresh notice filed on 24 April [12][13].
Disputes have arisen in every period covered here. Complaints about the Commission’s partiality were made by the BJP in 2006 to 2009 against a Commissioner appointed under a Congress-led government, by the BJP in 2014, by the Congress in 2019 and by opposition parties from 2023 to 2026 [22][24][20][12]. Where a response by the Commission or the government named in a complaint was found, it is recorded in the claims table; the courts have given findings only on narrower questions, such as the EVM-VVPAT system in April 2024 [6]. The Commission’s 2024 position on Form 17C data is described in [8]. Electoral bonds data were published by the Commission after the Supreme Court’s February 2024 order; see the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 action entry for detail [27]. The special intensive revision of rolls is covered in the dossier special-intensive-revision-electoral-rolls and is not repeated here.
What the record does not show is listed under ‘What this does not show’.
In date order. Each item shows what kind of statement it is, who is the actor, and where it comes from.
An Ordinance amended the 1991 Act so that the Commission became a three-member body; Chief Election Commissioner T. N. Seshan challenged it. He said the step was meant to curb his powers over code-of-conduct violations by the ruling party; the Union government denied any such link.
Source [23]: Supreme Court upholds multi-member Election Commission: T. N. Seshan v. Union of India, 1995 (seen in search results, not opened)A Constitution Bench dismissed Seshan's challenge in T. N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 611 and held that Article 324 permits a multi-member Commission.
Source [23]: Supreme Court upholds multi-member Election Commission: T. N. Seshan v. Union of India, 1995 (seen in search results, not opened)L. K. Advani and other opposition MPs petitioned the President to remove Election Commissioner Navin Chawla over alleged partisanship.
Source [22]: Law ministry releases Gopalaswami's letter on Chawla (seen in search results, not opened)Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami recommended Chawla's removal under Article 324(5); the Union government did not act on it, and Chawla became CEC in April 2009.
Source [22]: Law ministry releases Gopalaswami's letter on Chawla (seen in search results, not opened)Election Commission barred Amit Shah (BJP) and Azam Khan (Samajwadi Party) from rallies over speeches, then eased the restriction on Shah; Samajwadi Party and Congress objected to the relaxation.
Source [25]: EC's decision on Amit Shah rakes up controversy, April 2014 (seen in search results, not opened)The Commission initially refused permission for a Narendra Modi rally in Varanasi; the BJP, through Arun Jaitley, protested publicly and permission was granted late on 7 May.
Source [24]: India's BJP protests against electoral body, May 2014 (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court disposed of Sushmita Dev's petition (Congress) against the Commission's handling of complaints against Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, saying the complaints had been decided and the merits could be challenged in a separate petition.
Source [20]: Can't examine merits of clean chits to Modi and Shah; file separate petition, SC disposes of Congress MP's petition (seen in search results, not opened)Commission recognised the Eknath Shinde group as the Shiv Sena and allotted it the bow-and-arrow symbol, citing the share of votes polled for the MLAs backing each side.
Source [17]: Supreme Court refuses to stay EC order to recognise Eknath Shinde faction as real Shiv Sena (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court declined to stay the Shiv Sena order, saying it was confined to the symbol, and issued notice on the Thackeray group's appeal.
Source [17]: Supreme Court refuses to stay EC order to recognise Eknath Shinde faction as real Shiv Sena (seen in search results, not opened)Constitution Bench decided Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India: until Parliament legislates, appointments are to follow a three-member committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
Source [3]: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (judgment of 2 March 2023)Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023) is dated 28 December 2023; in force 2 January 2024.
Source [1]: Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023)Commission recognised the Ajit Pawar group as the NCP and allotted it the clock symbol, relying on legislative strength (51 of 81 legislators, as reported).
Source [18]: Sharad Pawar moves Supreme Court challenging ECI decision recognizing Ajit Pawar faction as NCP (seen in search results, not opened)Selection Committee recommended Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners after two vacancies; the President approved the same day, as recorded by the Supreme Court.
Source [4]: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 246 (order of 22 March 2024)Supreme Court allowed the Sharad Pawar group to use the name 'Nationalist Congress Party - Sharadchandra Pawar' and a trumpet symbol, and directed the Ajit Pawar group to publish a notice that the clock symbol allotment is sub judice.
Source [19]: Supreme Court asks ECI to reserve trumpet symbol for NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), directs NCP to declare clock symbol is sub judice (seen in search results, not opened)Supreme Court (Justices Khanna and Datta) dismissed applications to stay section 7 of the 2023 Act, expressing concern at the shortlisting procedure but declining interim relief because of the 2024 general election.
Source [4]: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 246 (order of 22 March 2024)Supreme Court rejected petitions for a return to paper ballots and for 100% VVPAT-EVM cross-verification, and issued two directions (sealing of symbol loading units; engineer check of burnt memory in 5% of EVMs on candidates' request).
Source [6]: Supreme Court rejects pleas seeking 100% EVM-VVPAT cross-verification, issues directions to seal symbol loading unitCommission filed an affidavit saying it has no legal mandate to publish Form 17C and that its turnout app data is provisional and non-statutory.
Source [8]: No legal mandate to provide voter turnout data from each polling station, EC tells Supreme CourtSupreme Court vacation bench declined interim relief on ADR's application for booth-wise Form 17C data during the ongoing election.
Source [9]: SC declines interim relief on plea seeking uploading of booth-wise voter turnout data (seen in search results, not opened)CEC Gyanesh Kumar held a press conference and told Rahul Gandhi to file an affidavit or apologise over 'vote chori' allegations.
Source [26]: CEC rejects Rahul Gandhi's vote chori charges, says either give affidavit or apologise (seen in search results, not opened)Opposition MPs submitted notices to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar: 130 in the Lok Sabha and 63 in the Rajya Sabha.
Source [12]: Signed by 193 MPs, notices to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected, no reason givenLok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the notices under section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, citing a 'careful and objective assessment' and giving no further reasons.
Source [12]: Signed by 193 MPs, notices to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected, no reason givenOpposition submitted a fresh notice in the Rajya Sabha signed by 73 MPs alleging 'proven misbehaviour'; its status as of late September was undecided in the reports found.
Source [13]: Opposition submits fresh notice in Rajya Sabha to impeach Chief Election CommissionerSC Observer reports that a bench considering the challenge to the 2023 Act directed the papers to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench (not checked against the order text).
Source [5]: Challenges to the Appointment of Election Commissioners Act, 2023 (case tracker)Findings, official statements, data and events are on record. An allegation is a claim that no finding has established; it is marked with a dashed border, a warning triangle and the words "Not established", and always shows its status and any response.
| Claim | Type | Made by | Status | Response | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not established by a findingAppointment under the 2023 Act: replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the Selection Committee leaves two of three members from the government side. | Allegation | Opposition members of Parliament, including DMK's Tiruchi Siva; analysis by PRS Legislative Research | Challenged in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected petitions; stay refused on 22 March 2024; matter pending | Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the Bill is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, that the Court's committee was a stop-gap, and that appointments are an executive function with the Prime Minister a part of the process. | [28]: Unhappy with minister's reply, Opposition parties walk out of Rajya Sabha over bill to appoint CEC, ECs (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingThe shortlist for the two Election Commissioner posts was given to the Leader of Opposition only minutes before the 14 March 2024 Selection Committee meeting. | Allegation | Petitioners in Jaya Thakur, relying on a report quoting Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury (Congress) | Recorded by the Supreme Court; the Court expressed concern about the procedure but declined interim relief | The Union's stated position, as recorded in the order, was a timeline of Search and Selection Committee steps beginning on 1 February 2024 and the Selection Committee meeting being advanced to 14 March 2024 because of a second vacancy. | [4]: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 246 (order of 22 March 2024) |
| Appointments should be made on the advice of a committee including the Chief Justice, and service conditions of Election Commissioners should not be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, until Parliament legislates. | Finding | Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, 2 March 2023 | Judgment of the Court; the 2023 Act is a later law under Article 324(2) | Not applicable | [3]: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (judgment of 2 March 2023) |
| Not established by a findingSeshan, 1993: the Union government expanded the Commission to curb a Chief Election Commissioner who had acted against code-of-conduct violations by the ruling party. | Allegation | T. N. Seshan | Rejected: Supreme Court upheld the multi-member Commission on 14 July 1995 | The Union government denied any link to the ruling party's electoral setbacks and said the Ordinance followed observations in S. S. Dhanoa v. Union of India. | [23]: Supreme Court upholds multi-member Election Commission: T. N. Seshan v. Union of India, 1995 (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingElection Commissioner Navin Chawla showed partisanship toward the Congress-led government. | Allegation | L. K. Advani and other opposition MPs (2006); CEC N. Gopalaswami's 2009 recommendation to the President | The Union government did not act on the recommendation; Chawla served as CEC from April 2009 to July 2010 | Reports said the Attorney General had given Chawla a clean chit in 2006; Chawla argued at one stage that the CEC lacked power to recommend removal. | [22]: Law ministry releases Gopalaswami's letter on Chawla (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingIn 2014 the Commission acted partially in the matter of speeches and the Varanasi rally. | Allegation | BJP (Arun Jaitley, Narendra Modi) on the Varanasi rally; Samajwadi Party and Congress on the relaxation of the ban on Amit Shah | Not the subject of a court finding in the sources reviewed; Varanasi permission was granted on 7 May 2014 | Commission granted the Varanasi permission and said the Amit Shah restriction had been modified with close monitoring; fuller ECI statements were not located. | [24]: India's BJP protests against electoral body, May 2014 (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingIn 2019 the Commission cleared Narendra Modi and Amit Shah on several code-of-conduct complaints, over a dissent by Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa. | Allegation | Sushmita Dev and the Congress (petitioner); reporting on Lavasa's dissents | Supreme Court disposed of the petition on 8 May 2019 as infructuous, leaving the merits for a separate petition; no finding on the merits | Under the 1991 Act, differences among Commissioners are decided by majority; a fuller ECI statement on the 2019 orders was not located. | [20]: Can't examine merits of clean chits to Modi and Shah; file separate petition, SC disposes of Congress MP's petition (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingDisparity in notices: a count of Commission notices and orders between 13 November 2023 and 8 May 2024 shows 6 involving Congress leaders and 3 involving the BJP. | Allegation | Sabrang India and The Wire (analysis of the Commission's website) | Analysis, not a Commission statement; the tally covers one period and does not record complaints made or the outcome of each | No ECI response to the analysis was found. Reports in search results (not opened) say that in April 2024 the Commission sent letters to the presidents of both the BJP and the Congress over star campaigners' speeches. | [10]: ECI: 16 notices issued for violation of MCC/electoral laws, 3 involving the BJP (Sabrang India headline shortened; The Wire's version seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingForm 17C and polling percentages, 2024: final turnout figures released after the first two phases were 5 to 6 percentage points higher than initially announced, and booth-wise Form 17C data should be published. | Allegation | Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR); independent candidate Mehmood Pracha | Supreme Court vacation bench declined interim relief on 24 May 2024; in March 2025 it gave petitioners liberty to approach the Commission | The Commission called the claim of a 5 to 6 per cent rise 'misleading and unsubstantiated'; said it has no legal mandate to share Form 17C with anyone other than candidates or their agents; said publishing it could enable morphed images; and said the turnout app is provisional. | [8]: No legal mandate to provide voter turnout data from each polling station, EC tells Supreme Court |
| The EVM-VVPAT system does not violate free and fair elections; the demand to return to paper ballots is rejected; 100% VVPAT counting is not ordered. | Finding | Supreme Court (Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta), 26 April 2024, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2024 INSC 341 | Judgment delivered; follow-up applications on verification SOPs were filed by ADR in 2025 | The Commission had told the Court the machines are non-tamperable and that full manual counting would be labour-intensive and prone to human error. | [6]: Supreme Court rejects pleas seeking 100% EVM-VVPAT cross-verification, issues directions to seal symbol loading unit |
| Not established by a findingShiv Sena and NCP symbol decisions relied on legislative strength rather than organisational structure. | Allegation | Uddhav Thackeray's group (Shiv Sena); Sharad Pawar's group (NCP) | Shiv Sena: Supreme Court refused a stay on 22 February 2023; NCP: Supreme Court gave interim directions on 19 March 2024; appeals pending as of the reports found | The Commission's orders said the MLAs backing Shinde had polled about 76 per cent of the votes for the 55 winning Shiv Sena candidates in 2019, and in the NCP case relied on the Ajit Pawar group's majority among legislators. | [17]: Supreme Court refuses to stay EC order to recognise Eknath Shinde faction as real Shiv Sena (seen in search results, not opened) |
| Not established by a findingOpposition parties allege 'vote chori' and say the Chief Election Commissioner should resign; notices seeking his removal were submitted in 2026. | Allegation | Rahul Gandhi (Congress); Jairam Ramesh (Congress); TMC members including Sagarika Ghose and Derek O'Brien | March 2026 notices rejected by the Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman on 6 April 2026 without detailed reasons; a fresh Rajya Sabha notice of 24 April 2026 was undecided in the latest reports found | The CEC on 17 August 2025 asked Mr Gandhi to file an affidavit or apologise; in September 2025 the Commission called the allegations incorrect and baseless and said no deletions occur without a hearing. No ECI response to the removal notices was found. | [12]: Signed by 193 MPs, notices to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected, no reason given |
Who says what, paraphrased with attribution. Every holder gets a card of the same size and the same fields.
It acts under Article 324, its voter-roll and polling data practices follow the Representation of the People Act and rules, and doubts about EVMs, turnout data and rolls are unsubstantiated; it says it has no legal obligation to publish Form 17C.
Source [8]: No legal mandate to provide voter turnout data from each polling station, EC tells Supreme CourtThe 2023 Act is consistent with the Supreme Court judgment, which created a temporary committee; selection of Commissioners is an executive function.
Source [28]: Unhappy with minister's reply, Opposition parties walk out of Rajya Sabha over bill to appoint CEC, ECs (seen in search results, not opened)The Chief Justice should remain on the Selection Committee; the Commission has acted unequally between parties and the CEC should be removed.
Source [12]: Signed by 193 MPs, notices to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected, no reason givenThe Commission was partial in not acting on its complaints about the Varanasi administration, and in restricting Narendra Modi's rally.
Source [24]: India's BJP protests against electoral body, May 2014 (seen in search results, not opened)Free and fair elections need an independent Commission and Parliament was meant to legislate on appointments; the Court expressed concern about the 2024 shortlisting process but did not stay the Act, and held that the EVM-VVPAT system stands.
Source [4]: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 246 (order of 22 March 2024)| Feature | Before 2 March 2023 | Interim, 2 March 2023 (Anoop Baranwal) | Act of 2023 (in force 2 January 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who recommends | No parliamentary law under Article 324(2); appointments made by the President (Court order notes appointments from the 1950s to 2023) | Three-member committee: Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Chief Justice of India | Selection Committee: Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition (or largest opposition party leader), Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister |
| Search or panel | None specified in law | Not specified in the sources reviewed | Search Committee headed by the Law Minister with two Secretary-level members proposes five names; Selection Committee may consider others |
| Eligibility | Not specified in law | Not specified in the sources reviewed | Holds or has held a post equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India; integrity; election experience |
| Term | Not verified for this version | Service conditions not to be varied to disadvantage after appointment | Six years or age 65, whichever is earlier; no re-appointment |
| Removal | CEC as a Supreme Court judge; others on CEC's recommendation | Same grounds of removal for Election Commissioners as for the CEC (para 126 of the judgment) | CEC as a Supreme Court judge; other ECs only on the CEC's recommendation |
| Entity | Count |
|---|---|
| Congress and its leaders | 6 |
| BRS | 3 |
| BJP and its leaders | 3 |
| AAP | 2 |
| Karnataka Government | 1 |
| Telangana Chief Electoral Officer | 1 |
| Response | Per cent |
|---|---|
| Trust to a great extent | 28.6 |
| Trust 'not much' | 12.8 |
| Trust 'not at all' | 9 |
| State or UT | 2019 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Madhya Pradesh | 6 | 22 |
| Delhi | 11 | 30 |
Numbers in square brackets refer to this list. Types: primary, official data and court sources are weighed above media and academic ones.
Facts as of . Last reviewed .Report an error.
Printed from https://indiareview.pages.dev/dossiers/election-commission-of-india/. Facts as of 12 Oct 2026; check the sources for later developments.