The Supreme Court has rightly underlined the need for a fair process in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (ECs) while hearing a petition challenging the current system of appointment. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, appointments of the CEC and ECs are made by a committee comprising the prime minister, a Union minister, and the leader of the opposition. This law was enacted after the apex court, in the Anoop Baranwal case, directed that the selection committee include the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The court laid down this procedure to ensure equal representation of the government and the Opposition, with an independent, neutral person of eminence as the third member to guarantee fairness in the choice. The presence of a neutral person on the committee is essential because elections are the most important democratic process, and the body that conducts them must be neutral and independent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the law, arguing that it was wrong to assume that the prime minister and the minister would “not act in the interest of democracy” merely because they hold a majority in the committee. He said that the office of the prime minister carries constitutional authority and high sanctity, and demanding a neutral member implied a lack of trust in the prime minister.

The court made it clear that the issue was not one of trust or distrust in the prime minister, but imbalance in the committee’s composition, which tilts power toward the executive. Democratic processes must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. The sanctity of the office of the prime minister does not ensure fairness and neutrality. The government rushed the legislation to override the Anoop Baranwal judgment and secure control over the appointment of the next CEC. The consequence is visible in the conduct of the Election Commission of India, which increasingly mirrors the government’s interests. The Solicitor General offered a weak defence of a wrong position, while the court’s questions and observations were fair and valid, and affirmed the need for institutional checks and balances in the system. (Source: DH)