"Supreme Court Refers EC Appointment Law Challenge to CJI"
Article 324
Constitutional provision vesting superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI.
Anoop Baranwal case
2023 Supreme Court verdict creating an interim EC appointment committee.
The Election Commission of India functions under Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Commission. For decades, Parliament did not enact a law governing appointments to the Commission, even though Article 324(2) itself contemplated such a law. In practice, the President appointed the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) purely on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
This gap was addressed by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). The Court held that leaving appointments entirely to the executive threatened the Commission's independence, and it laid down an interim mechanism: a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. Parliament then enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which retained the three-member structure but replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, giving the government two of the three seats.
A similar contest between executive control and institutional independence played out earlier in judicial appointments. The 99th Constitutional Amendment created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), giving the political executive a decisive say in judicial appointments alongside the CJI and senior judges. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, holding that this composition compromised judicial independence, and restored the collegium system. The 2023 EC Act raises a comparable question: whether replacing a judicial member with a second executive nominee tilts the selection committee too far toward the government.
The core constitutional question is whether Article 324 requires the appointment process to be insulated from unilateral executive control, given the Commission's role as an umpire between political parties. The 2023 Act's committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Because Cabinet Ministers are bound by collective responsibility, critics argue the Leader of Opposition's presence becomes symbolic rather than a genuine check, since the government effectively controls two of three votes.
One judge in the recent reference observed that the petitioners' claim of overwhelming executive influence over EC appointments does appear to have substance. …
Consider the following statements:
1.Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
2.It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate the election disputes.
3.According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
1.While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
2.The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
3.The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past?
Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Match List-I (Body/Mechanism) with List-II (Key composition feature) and select the correct answer using the codes given below:
List-I:
A.Interim mechanism laid down in Anoop Baranwal (2023)
B.Selection committee under the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023
C.National Judicial Appointments Commission (struck down in 2015)
List-II:
1.Includes the Chief Justice of India
2.Includes a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, but not the CJI
3.Includes the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons
Consider the following statements regarding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs):
1.The interim mechanism laid down in the Anoop Baranwal case (2023) included the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection committee.
2.The CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 retains the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Article 324 of the Constitution of India deals with which of the following?
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the adjudication of election disputes in India?
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, was introduced through which Constitutional Amendment?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account