Back
Mandates CJI and Opposition Leader in Panel for CEC, EC Appointments
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the has delivered a landmark verdict on the independence of the (ECI). The Court ruled that, until Parliament enacts a law on the subject, appointments to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) must be made by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The judgment also declared that the right to vote in direct elections is a under , settling a long-standing debate on whether it was merely a statutory right.
A Historic Verdict for Electoral Integrity
The petitions, led by Anoop Baranwal and others, had challenged the exclusive power of the executive to appoint members of the ECI, arguing that it compromised the institution's neutrality and violated the of the Constitution. The Court agreed, finding that the framers of the Constitution never intended the appointment process to be left solely to the government of the day.
The Constitutional Gap That Persisted for Decades
Justice K.M. Joseph, writing for the majority, delved into the Constituent Assembly debates. He noted that while
vests the appointment power with the President, it explicitly adds the phrase
"subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament."
This, the Court held, was a clear mandate for Parliament to legislate on the process—a mandate that had remained unfulfilled for over 70 years, creating a "
."
Petitioners' Arguments: An Independent Collegium Is Essential
Senior Counsel and argued that the existing practice, where the executive alone decides appointments, bred a "" that undermined the ECI's independence. They pointed to multiple official reports—from the (), the (), and the —all recommending a broad-based selection committee.
The Union's Defense:
The Union of India, represented by Attorney General and Solicitor General , urged . They argued that was complete and that the Court should not venture into policy-making, which is the legislature's domain. They also claimed that no "" proved the current system was broken.
Court's Analysis: In the Constituent Assembly's Footsteps
The Court rejected the Union's contentions, emphasizing that the independence of the Election Commission was a matter of "." It noted that unlike other constitutional posts (e.g., the Comptroller and Auditor General), the framers had consciously made the appointment of ECs subject to parliamentary law to prevent .
The judgment also drew comparisons with other independent bodies like the , the , and the , which already have multi-member selection committees.
'Right to Vote Is a '
In a significant expansion of constitutional rights, the Court held that the right to vote is not merely a statutory creation but flows from
read with Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
"The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs as a voter is the core of the
,"
the Court stated, adding that it is an expression of the citizen's fundamental freedom of speech.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Democracy is meaningful only if the sublime goals enshrined in the receive the undivided attention of the rulers."
"The appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners, shall be made by the President on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition… and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament."
"Independence must embrace the ability to be firm, even as against the highest."
The Final Order: A Committee Until Parliament Acts
The Bench issued the following directions:
- Until Parliament enacts a law, the CEC and ECs shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee of the PM, LoP in Lok Sabha, and CJI.
- The Court made a "fervent appeal" to the government to provide the ECI with an independent secretariat and to charge its expenditure on the Consolidated Fund of India.
However, the Court declined to grant equal to Election Commissioners as enjoyed by the CEC (who can only be removed like a judge). The —which allows an EC's removal on the recommendation of the CEC—was left intact.
Unfinished Business: The Act and
While the Anoop Baranwal judgment was a major step, its impact was immediately tested. Parliament enacted the , which removed the CJI from the selection committee and replaced that position with a Union Cabinet Minister. This move has been challenged in court and remains a flashpoint.
The judgment also did not address the thorny issue of within the Commission. In the episode involving then-Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, dissenting notes against clean chits given to political leaders were reportedly not recorded in official orders. Lavasa later resigned. That incident highlighted the where the CEC—who holds superior —can dominate the other Commissioners, whose tenure depends on his recommendation. The Act also failed to mandate the recording of dissent or clarify the procedure for internal disagreements.
As the world's largest democracy awaits a comprehensive electoral law, the 's mandate provides a temporary but vital shield for the ECI's independence. Yet, the full set of structural safeguards—including for all commissioners and a process—remains a work in progress.
