Polity and Governance › Elections

Election Commission and the conduct of elections

The body that runs elections and how it is chosen, the conduct of an election from notification to result, and the disputes that follow.

All 3 articles shown; the 1 that changed from 1 July to 30 September 2026 are marked.Show only these

A rejected nomination and Article 329(b)

Prelims

Article 329(b) bars courts from questioning an election except by an election petition, so a candidate whose nomination is rejected must challenge the whole election in the High Court.

What changed

13 Jun 2026Briefnewly addedA Returning Officer in Madhya Pradesh rejected a Rajya Sabha nomination because the Form 26 affidavit did not disclose a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding under N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) that an election petition in the High Court is the only remedy. The Hindu, 13 Jun 2026 · The Tribune, 12 Jun 2026: Supreme Court junks Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination plea (opens in a new tab)

Rajya Sabha biennial elections

Prelims

Rajya Sabha biennial elections fill the seats of members who retire every two years; members are elected by the elected members of the State Assemblies under Article 80(4).

What changed

18 Jun 2026Briefnewly addedPolling for 24 seats in ten States was held on 18 June 2026, after a notification on 1 June. The vote is by the single transferable vote, and members of a party vote by open ballot. UNI, 1 Jun 2026

Appointment of the Election Commission

Prelims and Mains

LeadWho appoints the Election Commission: the split verdictSeptember 2026

Why in news

On 23 September 2026 a two judge bench of the Supreme Court split on the challenge to the 2023 law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners. Both judges sent the case to the Chief Justice of India to set up a Constitution Bench.

Background

Article 324(2): the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament.
For over seventy years there was no such law, and the government of the day chose the members.
In Anoop Baranwal (2023) five judges directed that, until Parliament made a law, a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India would advise the President.
Parliament then passed the 2023 Act. Its Section 7 replaces the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister named by the Prime Minister.

What the two judges said

Justice Dipankar Datta: no larger bench is needed. An independent Commission is part of the constitutional scheme, and, as his prima facie view, a Minister on the panel can hardly differ from the Prime Minister. The Commission must not only be independent but appear to be so.

Justice S.C. Sharma: whether Parliament must include a neutral member has never been decided, and two judges should not settle it.
Both asked the Chief Justice to consider a permanent five judge bench for constitutional questions, noting that references wait for years.

The constitutional question

The petitioners: a committee where the government holds two of three votes restores executive control over the body that conducts elections. Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.

The Union: Article 324(2) expressly leaves the matter to Parliament, which is answerable to the people. The Court's committee was a stopgap, as the Court itself said.
The question for five judges: does Parliament have a free hand, or does the basic structure require a selector independent of the executive?

Can the Chief Election Commissioner act alone?

A separate plea, taken up on 29 September, says the Chief Election Commissioner took decisions without the agreement of the other two members.
The 2023 Act says that when members differ, the majority view prevails.
The Constitution protects the Chief Election Commissioner from removal more strongly than the other two, who can be removed on his recommendation.

Cases to cite

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): the interim committee with the Chief Justice of India.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): upheld the multi member Commission; the Chief Election Commissioner is first among equals, and decisions are by majority.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): Article 324 is a reservoir of power, to be used fairly.

The way forward

A selection committee in which the executive does not hold the majority; the Law Commission's 255th Report proposed the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
The same protection from removal for all three members.
A bar on post retirement office under the government.
An independent secretariat and expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund.

Prelims facts

Article 324(2): appointment by the President, subject to law made by Parliament.
Article 324(5): the Chief Election Commissioner is removed only like a Supreme Court judge; other Commissioners only on his recommendation.
2023 Act: committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party) and a Cabinet Minister.
Article 145(3): at least five judges for a substantial question of constitutional interpretation.
The Commission has been a three member body since 1993.

Open the lead on its own page

Article 324(2): the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament.

What changed

23 Sep 2026LeadWho appoints the Election Commission: the split verdict