"Appointing the Election Commission: An Expert Explains what Constituent Assembly said"
GS Paper II: Indian Polity, Constitutional bodies, Election Commission, separation of powers, and judicial review of appointment processes.
Prelims:
Mains:
Article 324
Constitutional provision vesting election superintendence in the Election Commission; does not fix its size.
Article 324(5)
Protects the CEC from removal except by the process used for a Supreme Court judge.
Article 324 of the Constitution gives the Election Commission superintendence, direction, and control over elections. Crucially, the Constitution does not fix the number of Election Commissioners. Article 324(2) allows for a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and 'such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix.' This means the Commission's strength has always depended on a presidential order, not a constitutional mandate. The Commission was a single-member body from 1950 until October 1989. It briefly became a three-member body just before the 1989 general election, reverted to a single CEC in January 1990, and became a three-member body again in October 1993, a form it has retained since.
The Constituent Assembly debated how Commissioners should be appointed but reached no final answer. B R Ambedkar called the appointment question one of the Drafting Committee's biggest difficulties. He considered but rejected the American practice of Senate confirmation, fearing it would import political bargaining. Shibban Lal Saxena proposed a two-thirds parliamentary majority for appointments, warning that a government could otherwise install a loyal figure as CEC. H N Kunzru argued the Central Government could be just as politically biased as provincial governments. The Assembly rejected these proposals and left the appointment mechanism to future parliamentary legislation. For over seven decades, no such law was passed, and the President continued to appoint Commissioners on the Council of Ministers' advice.
The first legal test of the Commission's variable structure came when Election Commissioner S S Dhanoa challenged the 1990 abolition of his post. In 1991, the Supreme Court held that while a CEC is constitutionally mandatory, appointing additional Election Commissioners is not. The President may add or remove such posts at will. The Court noted in passing that the CEC occupied a distinctly higher position, but left open what powers additional Commissioners would hold once appointed. That question returned when the government appointed two more Election Commissioners in October 1993 and issued an ordinance providing for decision by majority where unanimity failed.
This 1993 arrangement was challenged before the Supreme Court by both a private petitioner and the sitting CEC. The CEC argued that Article 324(5)'s special protection for his removal implied a parallel superiority in decision-making. …
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?
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?
Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws.
Consider the following statements regarding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs):
1.The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India recommend such appointments until Parliament legislated.
2.The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 retained the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection committee.
3.Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements about the Election Commission of India:
1.Article 324 vests the Election Commission with the power to adjudicate disputes regarding the validity of an election.
2.Disputes regarding the election of a returned candidate are decided through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3.The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only through a process similar to the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Which of the following statements about the Election Commission of India's composition is/are correct?
1.The Election Commission functioned as a single-member body until 1989.
2.The Chief Election Commissioner has greater decision-making power than the other Election Commissioners.
3.All members of the Election Commission have equal power in decision-making, as settled by the Supreme Court.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
Match List-I (Constituent Assembly member) with List-II (position taken during debates on Article 324):
List-I:
A.Shibban Lal Saxena
B.H N Kunzru
C.B R Ambedkar
List-II:
1.Considered the American Senate-confirmation model but feared it would import political bargaining
2.Proposed a two-thirds parliamentary majority to appoint Election Commissioners
3.Warned that political prejudice of the Central Government, not only provincial governments, could bias elections
Select the correct code:
Which of the following statements regarding removal of members of the Election Commission of India is/are correct?
1.The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through a process similar to impeachment of a Supreme Court judge.
2.Other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
3.The Constitution of India itself prescribes a fixed term of office for all members of the Election Commission.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account