The Supreme Court's Historic Judgment on the Appointment of Election Commissioners: What Does it Mean for Indian Democracy?

Blog Outline:

Introduction: Explaining the Supreme Court's Ruling on Election Commissioners

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has unanimously ruled that a high-power committee must be constituted for the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. The five-judge bench in (Anoop Baranwal vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And Justice) headed by the Chief Justice of India, declared that the committee will consist of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. This ruling is an important step towards ensuring free and fair elections in India.

The appointment of the CEC and the ECs shall be made by the President on the advice of a Committee consisting of the -

• The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or if no leader of Opposition is present, then the leader of the largest opposition Party in Lok Sabha), and Chief Justice of India are all accorded an esteemed place in our society.
• The Supreme Court's decision is conditional on any potential laws made by Parliament. This means that Parliament can choose to overturn the SC's verdict with a new law regarding the issue.
• After taking into consideration the debates of the Constituent Assembly, the Court has come to a decision that elections must be conducted by an impartial Commission. All members of the Assembly were in agreement on this matter.
• On the issue of the process of removal of Election Commissioners (ECs), the Court ruled that it cannot be the same as that of the process of removal of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
• The Constitution states that the CEC can be removed in a process similar to a judge, on grounds of proven incapacity or misbehavior.
• Although the Constitution ensures equality of Election Commission (ECs) and Chief Election Commission (CEC) in most matters, Article 324 is inactive without the presence of a CEC.
• The Court left it to the government to decide on the budget for the Commission, but made an appeal for a permanent Secretariat whose expenses would be incorporated into India's Consolidated Fund.
• The ruling by the court is structured in such a way that it holds a proper equilibrium with regard to the separation of powers.

The Government stated that without an applicable law, the President had the authority to take action based on their constitutional power. They requested the court to exercise caution and restraint in their ruling.?

Can the Supreme Court Create a High-Powered Committee?

• Generally, courts are unable to take action in such matters. However, if there is a provision in the Constitution which safeguards citizens' rights and enables the achievement of constitutional purposes;
• or if the legislative branch of government fails to act, and there is an obvious void that needs to be filled, then courts may intervene.
• The Court is not afraid to take on what is essential to its functioning. Numerous instances have been mentioned where the Court has had to step in due to a lack of legislation, like the Vishaka guidelines for dealing with workplace harassment and how judge appointments are made.

A Look at the Evolution of Election Commissioner Appointments in India

The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional body responsible for conducting elections in the country. The commission consists of a Chief Election Commissioner and two other Election Commissioners. The Chief Election Commissioner is appointed by the President of India, while the other two Election Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

The appointment process of Election Commissioners has evolved over time in India. In the early years after independence, the appointment of Election Commissioners was based on the recommendations of the ruling party. This resulted in the appointment of partisan individuals who were not always committed to the principles of free and fair elections.

The appointment process was changed in 1989 when the Supreme Court of India ruled that the appointment of Election Commissioners must be made in consultation with the opposition parties. This was done to ensure that the appointments were non-partisan and made with the consensus of all political parties.

In 1993, the Supreme Court further refined the appointment process by ruling that the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President of India in consultation with a three-member committee. The committee consisted of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

In 2021, the Supreme Court once again intervened in the appointment process of Election Commissioners. The court set aside the appointment of the former Deputy Election Commissioner as the Election Commissioner, citing irregularities in the appointment process. The court also directed the government to constitute a committee to suggest ways to ensure transparency in future appointments.

The evolution of the appointment process of Election Commissioners in India reflects the country's commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The changes made over time have ensured that the Election Commission remains an independent and non-partisan body that is committed to ensuring free and fair elections in the country.

Overall, the appointment process of Election Commissioners in India has come a long way since independence. The changes made over time have strengthened the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission and helped to maintain the integrity of the election process in the country.

What are the Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling?

While delivering the far-reaching verdict, the Supreme Court called for the Election Commission to have an independent secretariat, rule-making powers, an independent budget, and protection from impeachment. The court said the Election Commission should draw funds directly from the Consolidated Fund of India, instead of having to go to the Prime Minister's Officer and the Law Ministry for funds and approvals. This Supreme court ruling implication and effects on election commissioner appointment will ensure "fair and transparent mechanism".

• The Supreme Court ruling implication is an incredibly powerful decision-maker in the Republic of India, given that these days nearly every political issue is being brought before it for adjudication. It holds a tremendous degree of power over the country as a result.
• The judgement revives the era of judicial activism and the allegation of judicial excess only reflects the Centre’s conventional stand based on Montesquieu’s principles of separation of powers.
• Article 324 (2) of the Constitution offers a democratic space for Parliament, which the Constituent Assembly refrained from occupying with any prescription. This was deliberate so that the future Parliament will have full autonomy in determining how it should be filled.
• The Parliament failed to meet the constitutional ambition, resulting in people believing that the Commission was biased towards the party that is currently in power.
• The way in which the CEC and ECs are appointed directly affects their functional autonomy. This is why it is important to select them carefully.
• The low-powered Election Commission could prove to be a perilous situation, thereby reducing its efficacy.
• The Supreme Court's judgement not only ensures justice and impartiality, but also serves as a reminder of the founding principles of our constitution in these precarious times.
• The judgement highlighted the critical difference between a conventional democracy and a constitutional democracy. In the former, the majority opinion is paramount, whereas in the latter it is the Constitution that reigns supreme.?

Understanding How Other Countries Deal with Election Commissioner Appointments

The appointment process of Election Commissioners varies across different countries. In some countries, Election Commissioners are appointed by the government, while in others, they are appointed by an independent body. Here is a brief overview and international comparison of how some countries deal with Election Commissioner appointments:

1. United States - In the United States, the President appoints members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with the advice and consent of the Senate. The FEC is an independent regulatory agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws and regulating the conduct of federal elections.
2. Canada - In Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections are appointed by the Governor in Council, which consists of the Prime Minister and other cabinet members. The appointments must be approved by the House of Commons.
3. United Kingdom - In the United Kingdom, the Electoral Commission is an independent body responsible for overseeing elections and regulating political parties. The members of the Electoral Commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons in consultation with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and other party leaders.
4. Australia - In Australia, the Australian Electoral Commission is responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums. The members of the commission are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government.
5. South Africa - In South Africa, the Independent Electoral Commission is responsible for conducting elections and ensuring the impartiality of the election process. The members of the commission are appointed by the President of South Africa in consultation with the National Assembly.

In most of these countries, there are provisions to ensure the impartiality and independence of the Election Commissioners. The appointment process usually involves consultation with political parties and independent bodies, and there are safeguards to prevent political interference in the appointment process.

Conclusion: What is Next After This Historic Judgment on Election Commission Appointments?

Such an independent and credible ECI should seriously address the several ills seen to be plaguing India’s electoral system, such as allegations of selective culling of the electoral rolls; EVM voting often not complying with basic and essential requirements of ‘Democracy Principles’ i.e., each voter able to verify that her vote is cast-as-intended, recorded-as-cast and counted-as-recorded; vulgar use of money power; corrupting and criminalizing the elections; buying and selling of votes; brazen misuse of the media; partisan functioning of election officials; and non-enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Only these measures can provide a level playing field, usher in integrity and restore confidence in the umpire, which is the essence of free and fair elections.

In order for the Supreme Court's decision to be effective in upholding the integrity of India's democratic process, it must be ensured that any means of attaining power adhere to the Constitution and laws both in principle and in practice.