Explained: Supreme Court Verdict On Election Commissioners Appointment

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India by petitioner Anoop Baranwal on the Election Commission Appointment. On 2 March 2023, a Constitution Bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar handed down the judgment to reduce government influence on Election Commission Appointments.

While reading the judgment, Justice KM Joseph stated that this practice shall continue until the Parliament forms a law.

What did the lawyers argue?

In writ petition number on the Election Commission appoints, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that no law exists to regulate the appointment of Election Commissioners. Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented another petition, argued that Article 324(2) of the Constitution does not lay down the guidelines for appointing an Election Commissioner.

Unsplash/Representational Image

The submissions by the advocates pointed out important issues in the appointment. It was also observed that the Central Government had not appointed anyone to the Election Commission to serve the full tenure of six years.

Enough attention was brought to the matter of the independence of the Election Commission. Advocate Bhushan also recommended a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. Presently, the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and two election commissioners based on the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister.

Advocate Sankaranarayanan also recommended a three-member committee comprising of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure a transparent appointment process.

Union of India¡¯s Stand

The Attorney General for India, R. Venkatramani, represented the Union of India. The submissions were made based on the Separation of Powers. Venkatramani argued that striking down a Constitutional provision is beyond the judiciary¡¯s jurisdiction. The judiciary can only interpret and expand the scope of an already existing provision. The judiciary cannot exercise its power beyond what is enshrined and thus cannot make or enact a law- a power only the legislature and executive can exercise- on behalf of the Parliament.

BCCL/Representational Image

Countering the arguments of an existing vacuum in Article 324(2), Additional Solicitor General, Balbir Singh argued that there is no need to fill up any such guidelines, as there is no vacuum, to begin with. Singh also, in his submissions, highlighted that there had been no evidence of partiality or unconstitutionality in the appointment process.

The way forward

BCCL/Representational Image

The Supreme Court, in the judgment, has delivered for a reduction of the Centre¡¯s invention in the process of appointment. As per the new rules, which are to stay until the Parliament makes stringent laws on the same- the President will appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and the two-election commissioner based on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition Party, and the Chief Justice of India. In case of no Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the single largest opposition party will preside on the panel.

The judgment is delivered to uphold democracy, as the Bench ensured that the persons appointment must be ¡°above politics.¡± The Court said, ¡°The means to gain power in a democracy must remain pure and abide by the Constitution and the laws. EC cannot claim to be independent then act in an unfair. A person in state of obligation to the state cannot have an independent frame of mind. An independent person will not be servile to those in power¡±