The Supreme Court of India is set to reexamine the contentious legislative changes surrounding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The hearing, scheduled for February 4, will delve into the constitutional tension between court judgments and legislative power, highlighted by recent alterations in the selection process enacted by Parliament in 2023.
This legal challenge follows a pivotal Supreme Court verdict on March 2, 2023, which initially established a selection panel for these appointments that included the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, the new law modified this panel, excluding the CJI and instead including a union cabinet minister alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), argued against this change. He highlighted the imminent retirement of the incumbent CEC, Rajiv Kumar, on February 18, stressing the urgency of the Court’s intervention to preserve the integrity of the election commission. Bhushan contended that excluding the CJI from the selection committee could undermine the democratic process by increasing executive influence over the Election Commission.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also representing petitioners, argued that the government’s approach to bypass the March 2 ruling was constitutionally inadequate. He suggested that a constitutional amendment, rather than a simple legislative enactment, was necessary to alter the established norms of such appointments meaningfully.
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, indicated a critical examination of the issue, juxtaposing the “opinion of the court under Article 141 versus legislative power to enact law.”
The case has also drawn attention due to the implications it has for the independence of the Election Commission. Bhushan and Sankaranarayanan have urged the Court to consider the broader ramifications of allowing executive dominance in the appointment process, which they argue could threaten the impartiality and effectiveness of electoral governance in India.
