SC questions Union minister's inclusion in poll chief selection panel
What's the story
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised questions on the inclusion of a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. The court was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The selection committee comprises Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by him, and Leader of Opposition.
Independence concerns
AG defends provision, perception of independence
While hearing the petition, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma questioned why a Cabinet minister was included. "It is not sufficient to be independent but it has to appear to be independent... The third member should be...neutral person. Why should it be a Minister from the Cabinet??" Justice Datta asked Attorney General R Venkataramani. Venkataramani defended the provision, saying the perception of independence is important and it will be evident from actions taken by appointed Election Commissioners.
CBI
Justice Datta cites example
Justice Datta highlighted that even in the appointment of CBI Director, CJI is part of the selection panel. "For the selection of CBI director...CJI is part of the selection committee. CBI... we can say for the maintenance of law and order. Or you can even stretch it to the 'rule of law.' But not for democracy? (in the case of CEC/ECs)...We are not saying the CJI should be there. But why shouldn't there be an independent member?" Justice Datta said.
Legal arguments
Petitioners call legislation 'fraud on Constitution'
Petitioners argued that the law violates constitutional provisions and does not ensure the independence of the Election Commission. Retired IAS officer SN Shukla, representing petitioner Lok Prahari, called the legislation "a fraud on the Constitution." He argued that replacing the Cabinet Secretary with a Union Minister in Section 6 was done at the last minute without justification. Shukla also questioned current appointments of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu for lacking special knowledge on election matters.
Presidential scrutiny
'CEC has not served as CEO'
He argued that neither had served as a Chief Electoral Officer in a State. Justice Sharma countered Shukla's arguments by pointing out that IAS officers have experience in election management. "They do have the experience in management and conduct of elections. They are IAS officers. You were also one. They have worked as Returning officers and Observers," Justice Sharma observed.
PILs
What petitioners said
The PIL petitioners, which included Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Jaya Thakur, ADR, and Mohua Moitra, among others, argued that the 2023 legislation violated a five-judge constitution panel decision in the Anoop Baranwal case. In that case, the SC ordered that the PM, CJI, and LoP be included on the selection panel. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a "cabinet minister."
Legal defense
Venkataramani says petitioners treating Anoop Baranwal as binding precedent
Attorney General Venkataramani defended the law, arguing ECI's independence must be assessed on the actual functioning of appointed commissioners. The Attorney General also criticized petitioners for treating Anoop Baranwal as a binding precedent on Parliament's legislative choices. He said the Constitution leaves appointment models to Parliament under Article 324 and Anoop Baranwal only created an interim arrangement to fill legislative gaps.