Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Independence in Election Commissioner Appointments

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday questioned the Central Government over the process adopted for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs). The court asked why the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) was included in the selection committee if the government ultimately held the deciding authority. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that while the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is part of the selection committee for the appointment of the CBI Director, there is no independent member in the committee responsible for appointing Election Commissioners. The bench was hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under the provisions of this law, the appointment committee for the CEC and Election Commissioners consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Minister. Earlier, the Supreme Court had introduced an interim arrangement in which the Chief Justice of India was also included in the appointment committee. However, the new law enacted by the Centre excluded the CJI from the panel. The petitions before the court allege that the 2023 law weakens the independence of the Election Commission by removing the CJI from the selection process. In 2023, in the Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India case, the Supreme Court had ruled that until Parliament enacted a new law, Election Commissioners would be appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. The Centre later enacted a new law that excluded the CJI from the committee, which has now been challenged before the apex court. During the hearing, the bench questioned Attorney General R. Venkataramani, asking whether the third member of the committee would support the Leader of the Opposition if there was disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader over a candidate’s name. The Attorney General acknowledged that such a possibility was unlikely. Responding to this, the court remarked that in such a situation, the executive effectively controls the entire process. The bench further observed that if that was the case, then including the Leader of the Opposition in the committee served little purpose and appeared to be merely symbolic.