ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ANR.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ANR.

If the Chief Election Commissioner faces reasonable apprehension of bias, he should recuse himself from the Commission's opinion formation. When the Commission is multi-member, the two Election Commissioners may reach a unanimous opinion. If they disagree, the Chief Election Commissioner is compelled by necessity to participate and form a majority opinion, which is communicated to the Governor for decision as required by Article 192(1).

Parties
Appellant: Election Commission of India; Respondent No. 1: Dr. Subramanian Swamy; Party (chief Minister, Tamil Nadu): J. Jayalalitha; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2; Intervenor: Intervenor
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal disposed of with modification to procedure in decision-making.
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Legislators, Bias in Decision Making, Doctrine of Necessity, Procedure of Election Commission
Constitutional Law Election Law Disqualification of Legislators Bias in Decision Making Doctrine of Necessity Procedure of Election Commission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Election Commission of India

Appellant

Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Respondent No. 1

J. Jayalalitha

Party (chief Minister, Tamil Nadu)

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Intervenor

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Election Commissioner must participate in decision-making when allegations of bias are raised against him
  2. 2 Procedure to be followed by the Election Commission in cases of bias and disqualification under Article 192

Ratio Decidendi

If the Chief Election Commissioner faces reasonable apprehension of bias, he should recuse himself from the Commission's opinion formation. When the Commission is multi-member, the two Election Commissioners may reach a unanimous opinion. If they disagree, the Chief Election Commissioner is compelled by necessity to participate and form a majority opinion, which is communicated to the Governor for decision as required by Article 192(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of with modification to procedure in decision-making.

Orders

  • Election Commission must hold a meeting to deliberate disqualification; the Chief Election Commissioner may recuse. If Commissioners agree unanimously, their opinion is communicated; if not, the Chief Election Commissioner must participate under necessity to form a majority opinion to be sent to the Governor. No...