| Topic: GS2 – Polity |
| Context |
|
Analysis of the news:
The Role of the Election Commission in India’s Democracy
- India, as the world’s largest democracy, has consistently upheld the principles of free and fair elections.
- Central to this democratic tradition is the Election Commission of India (ECI), which plays a pivotal role in ensuring electoral integrity.
- However, the appointment process of Election Commissioners (ECs) has been a matter of contention, raising concerns about the independence and impartiality of this crucial institution.
Demand for a Transparent Appointment Process
- Several civil society organisations (CSOs) and political leaders, including K. Advani, have long advocated for a more transparent and bipartisan system for appointing ECs.
- Prominent among these CSOs are the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Internet Freedom Foundation, Common Cause, Lok Satta Movement, and India Rejuvenation Initiative.
- The ADR, in particular, has spearheaded this movement. Despite multiple legal petitions and public demands, the Supreme Court has yet to treat this matter with the urgency it arguably deserves, leaving the perception of the ECI’s independence in question.
ADR’s Legal Battle for Reform
- The ADR initiated its legal challenge in 2015, questioning the executive’s exclusive control over EC appointments.
- They argued that such control compromised the ECI’s autonomy.
- Despite the case being referred to a Constitution Bench in 2018, the Supreme Court did not fast-track the hearings.
- Consequently, several EC appointments continued under the existing framework, further entrenching concerns about potential executive dominance over the ECI.
Supreme Court’s 2023 Ruling: A Temporary Solution
- A significant development occurred on March 2, 2023, when the Supreme Court, in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, pointed out the absence of a Parliamentary law governing EC appointments, despite the expectation under Article 324(2) of the Constitution.
As a temporary measure, the Court directed that the President should appoint ECs based on the recommendations of a committee consisting of:
- The Prime Minister
- The Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI)
This ruling aimed to ensure a bipartisan and neutral selection process, thereby enhancing the ECI’s perceived independence.
The 2023 Act: Dilution of the Supreme Court’s Spirit
- In December 2023, Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Surprisingly, this excluded the CJI from the selection panel and replaced them with a Union Cabinet Minister (nominated by the PM). The final composition now stood as:
- The Prime Minister
- A Union Cabinet Minister
- The Leader of the Opposition
This move undermined the bipartisan spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling, rendering the LoP’s role irrelevant and raising concerns about the executive’s dominance in the appointment process.
Constitutional Challenges and Judicial Inaction
- In January 2024, the ADR and other petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the 2023 Act, arguing that it destroyed the transparent and bipartisan selection process envisioned by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court, however, refused to grant an interim stay on the Act, allowing the executive to proceed with fresh appointments under the new framework.
- Consequently, in March 2024, two ECs were appointed, effectively presenting the judiciary with a fait accompli while the case remained under review.
Controversial Appointments and Supreme Court’s Reluctance
- As the incumbent CEC neared retirement on February 18, 2025, the ADR and other petitioners sought urgent judicial intervention to prevent further appointments under the contested law.
- However, the Supreme Court scheduled the hearing for February 19, 2025, after the retirement date.
- The government proceeded with the appointments via a midnight order, and the new CEC and EC assumed office on February 19.
- Although these newly appointed officials had impeccable credentials, the legitimacy of the appointment process remained in doubt.
Global Best Practices: A Comparative Analysis
Unlike India’s flawed system, other democracies have established transparent and bipartisan processes for appointing election commissioners:
- United States: Appointments by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent.
- South Africa: Appointments by the President based on National Assembly recommendations.
- Brazil: Appointments by the Federal Supreme Court.
- United Kingdom: Appointments by the Speaker’s Committee with cross-party membership.
- France: Joint appointments by the President, Legislature, and Judiciary.
- Nepal: Appointments by the President on the recommendation of a constitutional council, followed by a parliamentary hearing.
These models underscore the importance of bipartisanship and judicial involvement, ensuring institutional autonomy and bolstering public trust.
The Way Forward:
- The integrity of India’s electoral process depends on the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.
- The recent appointments, made under a contested legal framework, have left public confidence shaken.
- A simple corrective step, such as reinstating the CJI in the selection committee, could resolve ongoing litigation and restore the credibility of the process.
- The executive’s willingness to uphold democratic norms by embracing a bipartisan, neutral collegium-based system will determine the future legitimacy of the ECI.
- Drawing inspiration from global best practices, India can reinforce its democratic foundations, ensuring that its electoral process remains a beacon of integrity in the democratic world.
If you like this Editorial Don’t forget to check this –How Court Backlogs Are Turning Into Hidden Treasure