BENCH: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice C.T. Ravikumar
FACTS:
Multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the appointment process of the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 of the Constitution. Article 324(2) states that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President of India, in accordance with a law made by Parliament on this subject. However, despite the constitutional provision contemplating a legislative framework, Parliament has not enacted any such law even after nearly seven decades. In the absence of a statutory mechanism, the appointments have traditionally been made on the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is headed by the Prime Minister. The petitioners argued that this method of appointment, solely under the control of the executive, compromises the independence of the Election Commission and creates the potential for political influence in electoral processes. They contended that the lack of parliamentary oversight in the appointment process could undermine the neutrality, impartiality, and credibility of the Election Commission. Seeking judicial intervention, the petitioners urged the Supreme Court to direct Parliament to enact a law prescribing a transparent and independent selection process for appointing Election Commissioners. Alternatively, they requested the Court to establish a neutral, multi-member body responsible for making recommendations for these appointments, ensuring that the Election Commission remains free from executive interference and functions as a truly independent constitutional body.
ISSUES:
A key issue is whether Article 324(2) contains a legal vacuum due to the absence of a parliamentary law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, leaving the process solely to the executive’s discretion. If such a gap exists, the question arises whether the Supreme Court should intervene to ensure a transparent and independent appointment mechanism or leave it to Parliament’s discretion. Another concern is whether the safeguards granted to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) under Article 324(5), which prevent arbitrary removal, should be extended to other Election Commissioners (ECs) to ensure equal protection, institutional independence, and impartiality in electoral processes.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The bench unanimously laid down guidelines to regulate the selection of the members of the Election Commission. The Supreme Court gave directions to constitute a three-member Committee to make the recommendations until a law has been made by the Parliament. The Committee shall comprise of:
the Prime Minister,
the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha or if he is unavailable the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha and
the Chief Justice of India
The Court justified its decision through judicial activism, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens' rights within a democracy. It highlighted that Article 142 empowers the Court to issue directives ensuring complete justice, referencing landmark cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and the Third Judges Case to support judicial intervention in legal gaps. Analyzing Constituent Assembly Debates, the Court noted that Parliament was expected to legislate on Election Commission appointments. However, the executive’s unchecked discretion in appointments risks abuse of power, undermining democracy and the rule of law. While the Court did not compel Parliament to legislate, it stressed the urgency of a law, especially given concerns over political influence in elections.
On extending safeguards to Election Commissioners (ECs), the Court held that constitutional protection from executive interference, currently granted to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), should also apply to ECs to preserve institutional independence. Citing a Ministry of Law & Justice report, it emphasized that ECs should not be mere advisory members. Regarding the right to vote, the Court reaffirmed that Article 326 provides a constitutional right, with restrictions only as per disqualifications listed therein. It cited the PUCL case, affirming that voting is a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and must be safeguarded.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the need for an independent and transparent process in the appointment of Election Commissioners to uphold the democratic framework. Recognizing the absence of a parliamentary law, the Court stepped in to fill the gap through judicial activism, ensuring that executive discretion does not compromise the neutrality of the Election Commission. By establishing a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, the Court sought to introduce checks and balances in the appointment process until Parliament enacts a law. This decision aligns with landmark precedents where the judiciary has intervened to protect constitutional values and prevent institutional abuse, reinforcing the idea that judicial interpretation must evolve to meet contemporary democratic challenges.
Additionally, the Court’s ruling extends constitutional safeguards to Election Commissioners, previously only granted to the Chief Election Commissioner, ensuring greater institutional independence. By referring to the Ministry of Law & Justice report, the Court emphasized that ECs should not be seen as mere advisory members, preventing potential executive interference in election-related decisions. The ruling also reaffirmed voting as a fundamental democratic right, protected under Article 19(1)(a) as a form of expression, drawing from the PUCL case. By strengthening the Election Commission’s autonomy and addressing concerns over political influence in elections, the judgment marks a significant step toward electoral integrity, emphasizing the necessity for a fair, impartial, and transparent electoral process.
info@adhwaitha.com
