Supreme Court Questions Legitimacy of Parliamentary Debate on CEC/EC Appointments Law.

The Supreme Court of India raised concerns about whether there was a “proper debate” in Parliament regarding the ethos of its 2023 judgment, which altered the method of appointing members of the Election Commission. In the landmark decision of Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, the court established a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India to oversee the appointments, taking it out of the exclusive control of the political executive, which typically aims to maintain its power. Following this ruling, the Union government swiftly enacted a law reinstating the executive’s dominance in the appointment process by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

Justice Dipankar Datta, leading a justice bench, questioned the legitimacy of the legislative process following the controversial suspension of a majority of Opposition MPs before the law was passed. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted that the lack of debate surrounding the law violated the principles reflected in the earlier Supreme Court judgment. Notably, only AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi objected during the proceedings, asserting that the new law did not conform to the directive established in the Anoop Baranwal judgment. The response from the Law Minister, asserting compliance with the court’s directive, did little to address concerns of inadequate parliamentary scrutiny.

Arguments presented by various advocates underscored the dangers of executive dominance over the Election Commission, with implications for electoral integrity. Advocate Prashant Bhushan emphasized that impeachment provisions for the Chief Election Commissioner are insufficient to safeguard the independence of the institution. Echoing similar sentiments, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj referred to the 1975 Indira Nehru Gandhi case, arguing that the principle of free and fair elections is fundamental to democracy and should be protected. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria warned that a compromised Election Commission threatens the integrity of elections and sets a concerning precedent for the erosion of democratic institutions.