Judicial Review of Election Commission Decisions

Judicial review allows constitutional courts to test whether Election Commission decisions conform to the Constitution, election laws and standards of fair administration. Although Article 324 grants wide authority over elections, that authority is plenary only within its lawful field and is not absolute.

Scope of the Commission’s plenary power

Under Article 324, the Commission controls the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.

• In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Supreme Court treated Article 324 as a reservoir of power where legislation leaves a gap.
• Under A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984), the Commission may supplement election law where it is silent, but cannot override or contravene an existing statute or rule.

Substantive limits enforced by courts

Courts examine the legality of a decision rather than substituting their preferred electoral policy. The Commission must exercise power for an election-related purpose, in good faith and consistently with fairness and non-arbitrariness.

• A decision may be invalidated for violating the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts, statutory rules or binding judicial principles.
• Courts may interfere where action is mala fide, arbitrary, based on irrelevant considerations, or contrary to principles of natural justice applicable in the circumstances.
• The reasons stated in the Commission’s order are central to assessing its validity; later explanations cannot ordinarily cure an unlawful decision.

Timing of judicial intervention

Judicial review is also shaped by Article 329(b), which channels challenges that call an election into question into an election petition. This protects the continuity and timely completion of the electoral process.

• In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952), the Supreme Court favoured completion of the election before adjudication through the prescribed election dispute mechanism.
• In Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000), the Court held that intervention during an election may be permissible when it facilitates rather than interrupts or prolongs the process.