In Parliament’s Court
Current Situation:
- Recently, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners must be chosen by a high-power committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India (ECs).
- The election commission has to be reformated in order to maintain its independence and objectivity during the electoral process.
Historical context of the decision:
- Since over 50 years ago, there has been a call for an impartial procedure for choosing Election Commission members.
- The Justice Tarkunde Committee in 1975, the Dinesh Goswami Committee in May 1990, the second administrative reforms commission in January 2007, and the Law Commission of India in its 255th report from March 2015 have all regularly endorsed it.
- Since elections are the foundation of democracy, the integrity of the commission is essential to the legitimacy of the democratic process. The now-reformed system of nominations assures that the independence, autonomy, and institutional integrity of the Commission remain intact and well-protected by severely limiting the hold and control of the executive body over the organisation.
- In most nations, the nomination is not only approved by Parliament but also after consultation with the Opposition. The Supreme Court has taken into account the system used in many different nations.
Relevance of judgement
- According to Article 324(2) of the Constitution, the President shall appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, subject to the terms of any law passed by Parliament in this regard. It has been seven decades since this occurred.
- The Bench observed that despite having multiple political parties in power, none of them had created a legislation or a procedure for selecting members of the Election Commission. It was stated that there is a “lacuna” in the law and that it is essential to pass legislation in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution.
- The Election Commission’s function in the modern electoral process allows for misuse, including by manipulating the election calendar, among other things.
- The Commission is made to become and remain a partisan body and a branch of the executive because it is the only governmental branch involved in the appointment. It invokes the idea of the influence of reciprocity and fidelity to the appointing body.
- The appointment “must not be overshadowed by even a perception that a yes man will decide the fate of democracy and all that it promises,” the court ruled. “A person who is in a state of obligation or feels indebted to the one who appointed him fails the nation and can have no place in the conduct of elections, forming the very foundation of democracy.”
The new CEC and EC election procedure will improve democracy:
- The institution will have more credibility and objectivity thanks to this new method.
- Most critically, this will guarantee that the Electoral Commission’s reputation for neutrality is upheld.
- For the sake of public perception and trust, the institutions must not only appear to be autonomous but also to be such.
- As a result, the judgement also lends some consistency to the appointment processes used by institutions and statutory bodies that are in charge of upholding democracy and institutional autonomy on their own.
Many criticisms of the judgements:
- The idea of separation of powers has been brought up by the judgment’s detractors. The Supreme Court ruled on this matter in Golak Nath and others versus State of Punjab and another in 1973, stating that the Constitution is supreme and that all authorities must abide by it.
- The court has been charged with judicial activism by some. Definitely not. The Court has not responded to a PIL, an appeal, a representation on a postcard, or a suo motu request. Not one, not two, but four civil writ applications have been decided. Although it has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, it has chosen not to.
Further reforms are needed to strengthen the election commission even more:
- The Court makes a “fervent appeal” that the Union of India/Parliament “may consider” enacting the necessary changes so that the Commission becomes truly independent with regard to the relief relating to setting up a permanent secretariat for the Election Commission of India and charging its expenses to the Consolidated Fund of India.
- The verdict did not address some crucial issues, such as whether Election Commissioners should have the same protection against removal as the Chief Election Commissioner under the Constitution.
- Even though Justice Ajay Rastogi stated in a separate judgement that it is “desirable” that the grounds for dismissing election commissioners be the same as those of the Chief Election Commissioner, the protection from dismissal that is necessary for the commissioners’ independence has not been granted.
Conclusion:
- The election process will be strengthened by the Supreme Court’s appointment decision, which will increase the legitimacy and independence of the Election Commission.
- But, there are still more areas that need improvement, including the criminalization of politics, the influence of money, and the dubious role of the media, all of which, while significant, were only incidental. It is anticipated that comprehensive legislation, which this decision may lead to, will address the remaining difficulties.
