By NE NOW NEWS
Guwahati: The Supreme Court urged the Union government, on Thursday, to seriously consider concerns over its strong influence in the appointment of Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners, noting that an independent Election Commission of India is essential for ensuring free and fair elections.
During the proceedings, the Bench remarked that the selection panel appears to lack a completely neutral member. It raised concerns over the presence of a Cabinet Minister in the committee, noting that it is unlikely such a member would act independently of the Prime Minister.
The judges also questioned whether the role of the Leader of the Opposition in the panel carried meaningful influence, suggesting that decisions may still go through even without consensus.
The case relates to a set of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
According to the petitioners, the 2023 legislation overrides an earlier Constitution Bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, which had proposed a selection panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.
The new law replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister appointed on the Prime Minister’s recommendation.
The court observed that the earlier judgment reflected judicial restraint, but the 2023 law appears to increase executive control over top election appointments.
Justice Dipankar Datta, leading the Bench, underlined that democracy cannot function without an autonomous Election Commission.
He stated that constitutional principles make it clear that electoral processes must remain free from executive dominance, adding that independence of the Commission depends on the independence of its members as well.
Appearing for the Centre, the Attorney-General argued that it would be premature to assume misuse of the law without any concrete evidence of irregularity.
He further said that it would be unfair to presume institutional failure without examining how the system functions in real conditions.
Justice Datta, however, stressed that independence is not only about actual conduct but also about public confidence, adding that the Election Commission must be seen as neutral.
The Bench also asked the Attorney-General which law he considered second in importance only to the Constitution.
It observed that electoral legislation forms the foundation of democracy, noting that democratic governance cannot exist without elections.
In response, the Attorney-General maintained that the judiciary cannot function as an additional legislative chamber and that Parliament is not required to replicate court judgments while framing laws.
He added that judicial review is limited to testing the validity of legislation, not dictating its content or structure.
He also pointed out that the Anoop Baranwal ruling did not invalidate any law under Article 141, but only created an interim arrangement until Parliament enacted a statutory framework under Article 324(2).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench indicated that the petitions may be placed before a Constitution Bench for consideration.
However, the petitioners resisted the proposal, maintaining that the matter was a regular challenge to the 2023 legislation and did not involve any substantial legal issue that would justify sending it to a larger Bench under Article 145(3).