15th may | India
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the Centre’s 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), questioning whether the present mechanism gives excessive control to the executive and affects the perceived independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI).A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet minister in the three-member selection panel that appoints Election Commissioners.Under the current system, the panel consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that two members of the committee belong to the government, effectively giving the executive a dominant role in appointments.The bench questioned why an “independent” or “neutral” member could not be part of the selection process. The judges remarked that institutions such as the Election Commission must not only remain independent but should also appear independent to maintain public trust in the democratic system.Petitioners challenging the law argued that it diluted a Constitution Bench judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in March 2023. In that verdict, the court had ruled that appointments to the Election Commission should be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law on the issue.According to the petitioners, Parliament’s new law ignored the spirit of that judgment by removing the Chief Justice from the panel and replacing the position with a cabinet minister, thereby restoring executive influence in the appointment process.The Centre defended the legislation, stating that Article 324 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners. The government maintained that the Act was enacted within constitutional limits.However, the Supreme Court underlined that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s “basic structure,” stressing that the credibility and autonomy of the Election Commission are essential for preserving democratic values in the country.