Multi-member Election Commission valid, with majority decision-making and appointments upheld against arbitrariness and mala fide challenge.

Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission, with the President empowered to fix the number of additional Election Commissioners from time to time. Parliament may validly enact ancillary provisions governing the Commission's internal procedure, including unanimous regulation of business and, failing unanimity, decision by majority, because that scheme is consistent with a collegial constitutional body. The challenged notifications and appointments were also upheld: no mala fides were shown, and the expansion of the Commission was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The constitutional challenge to the ordinance, the enacted provisions, and the consequential appointments was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment introduced by ordinance and enacted as a statute providing for a multi-member Election Commission, including the procedure for transaction of business and decision by majority, was constitutionally valid; whether the notifications fixing the number of Election Commissioners and appointing additional Election Commissioners were arbitrary or mala fide.

Issue (i): Whether the Constitution permits a multi-member Election Commission and whether Parliament could enact provisions regulating how such a Commission transacts business.

Analysis: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission and expressly contemplates that it may consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such other Election Commissioners as the President may from time to time fix. The provision also recognises the Chief Election Commissioner as Chairman where the Commission is multi-member. On that scheme, the existence of additional Election Commissioners is constitutionally permissible, and the absence of an express constitutional procedure for internal business does not bar Parliament from supplying one. The statutory provisions requiring unanimous regulation of procedure and, failing unanimity, decision by majority were held to be consistent with the constitutional scheme and with democratic functioning of a collegial body.

Conclusion: The statutory provisions creating a multi-member Election Commission and prescribing the method of transacting business were upheld as constitutionally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notifications fixing the number of additional Election Commissioners and the appointments made thereunder were arbitrary, violative of Article 14, or mala fide.

Analysis: The Court found no basis to infer mala fides from the sequence of events or from the executive decision to expand the Commission. The material showed that the idea of a multi-member Election Commission had been under consideration for years and had support from various bodies and reports. The challenge based on arbitrariness also failed because Article 324 itself allows the President to fix the number of other Election Commissioners from time to time, and the Court rejected the proposition that a multi-member Commission is inherently unworkable or impermissible.

Conclusion: The notifications were held not to be arbitrary or mala fide and were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed in full, and the constitutional challenge to the ordinance, the enacted provisions, and the consequential appointments was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission, and Parliament may validly enact ancillary provisions regulating its internal business, including majority decision-making where unanimity is not achieved.

---