Supreme Court questions neutrality of EC selection panel, emphasizes independent poll body.
The Supreme Court questioned the Union government's dominant role in appointing Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs), emphasizing that free and fair elections depend on a truly independent Election Commission. The court highlighted the absence of a neutral person on the Prime Minister-chaired selection committee and the impracticality of a Cabinet Minister defying the PM. Petitioners challenged the 2023 Act, which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister on the selection panel, arguing it undermined the independence established by the Anoop Baranwal judgment. The Attorney-General argued against judicial overreach, stating the court cannot dictate laws to Parliament.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court underscored that free and fair elections necessitate a truly independent Election Commission.
- The court expressed concern over the composition of the selection committee, noting the absence of a neutral member and the influence of the Prime Minister.
- Petitioners challenged the 2023 Act for replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister on the selection panel, arguing it compromises EC independence.
- The Attorney-General contended that the Supreme Court should not act as a "second chamber of Parliament" by dictating legislative outcomes.
- The court suggested referring the petitions to a Constitution Bench, though petitioners opposed this, arguing it was a "conventional" challenge.
Exam Facts
- Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
- Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India case.
- Justice Dipankar Datta headed the Division Bench.
- Article 324(2) of the Constitution.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.