Syllabus: GS2/Polity & Governance
Context
- Recently, the Supreme Court remarked that Parliament’s prolonged failure to enact a law on Election Commission (EC) appointments reflected a possible ‘tyranny of the elected’.
Supreme Court’s Recent Observations (May 2026)
- ‘Tyranny of the Elected’: It questioned why Parliament failed for decades to enact a law despite constitutional mandate, and remarked ‘this should be equated with tyranny of the elected’.
- It reflects judicial concern regarding concentration of power, and executive influence over independent institutions.
- Debate on Parliamentary Deliberation: The Court questioned whether Parliament adequately debated the Anoop Baranwal judgment, and the spirit of judicial recommendations was reflected in the law.
Constitutional Position of the Election Commission
- Article 324 of the Constitution: The ECI is established under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.
- Composition:
- Originally, the Commission had only the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
- Since 1993, it has functioned as a multi-member body consisting of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and two Election Commissioners (ECs).
- Appointment: The President of India appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners.
- Article 324(2) states that appointments shall be subject to any law made by Parliament.
- Functions: The ECI supervises, directs, and controls elections to Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies and Councils, President and Vice-President of India.
- Powers and Role: Prepares electoral rolls, conducts elections, enforces the Model Code of Conduct, and recognizes political parties and allocates election symbols.
- Independence of the ECI: The Constitution provides safeguards to ensure independence, security of tenure for the CEC, removal of CEC similar to a Supreme Court judge, and service conditions cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.
How Were Election Commissioners Appointed Earlier?
- Before the 2023 law, the Union Law Ministry prepared a list of candidates, and a file was sent to the Prime Minister, and then PM advised the President of India, who formally made the appointment.
Law on EC Appointments (2023)
- Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
- It replaced the CJI in the selection committee with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
- New Selection Committee: Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Union Cabinet Minister (nominated by PM).
Key Concerns with the 2023 Law
- Executive Dominance: Two out of three members belong to the executive that restores executive control over appointments.
- Dilution of Judicial Neutrality: Removal of the CJI weakens checks and balances, and reduces institutional neutrality in appointments.
- Wide Discretion in Selection: Under Section 8(2), the committee may choose persons outside the search committee shortlist.
- It may reduce transparency and objective scrutiny.
- Validity Despite Vacancy: Section 7(2) states appointments will remain valid even if there is a vacancy in the committee.
- It can undermine collective decision-making.
Anoop Baranwal Case (2023)
- Petitioners challenged the absence of an independent mechanism for EC appointments.
- The Supreme Court observed that the Election Commission is a guardian of democracy.
- Electoral integrity requires institutional independence.
- Executive monopoly in appointments can undermine public trust.
Supreme Court’s 2023 Interim Arrangement
- Appointment Committee: The Court directed that appointments be made by a committee comprising: Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- Constitutional Rationale: The Court relied upon Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. BR Ambedkar’s concerns regarding executive influence, and basic structure principles of democracy and free elections.
Important Observations in Anoop Baranwal Judgment
- Election Commission as Guardian of Democracy: The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Voting as Freedom of Expression: The judgment expanded constitutional understanding by linking voting rights with freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
- Institutional Independence: The Court recommended an independent EC secretariat, charging EC expenses to the Consolidated Fund of India.
- It was aimed at insulating the Commission from financial pressure by the executive.
Suggested Reforms
- Independent Collegium: Includes Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India.
- Transparent Selection Criteria: Public disclosure of eligibility norms, and selection rationale.
- Independent Secretariat: Reduce administrative dependence on the executive.
- Financial Autonomy: Charge EC expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Parliamentary Scrutiny: Strengthen committee-based deliberations on constitutional appointments.
Previous article
Senior Care System in an Ageing India
