Supreme Court Verdict on ECI Appointments

In a unanimous decision, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. This was the SC’s ruling regarding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners (CJI).

In the event that there is no leader of the opposition present, the committee shall include the leader of the opposition party with the greatest numerical presence in the Lok Sabha.

What Are Some of the Other Significant Aspects Regarding the Verdict?

A perusal of the discussions of the Constituent Assembly (CA) on the nomination of ECI makes it evident that all the members were of the clear opinion that elections must be handled by an independent Commission. This was noted by the Supreme Court in its verdict.

The fact that the phrases “subject to the terms of any legislation established in that behalf by Parliament” were included on purpose is additional evidence that CA envisioned Parliament enacting laws that would control appointments to ECI. While, under normal circumstances, the court is not allowed to trespass on a power that is exclusively held by the legislature, given the framework of the Constitution as well as the inertia of the legislature and the hoover that is produced by it, the court is required to step in.

When asked if the procedure of removal should be the same for the CEC and the ECs, the Supreme Court ruled that it cannot be the same since the CEC has a distinctive status and article 324 is rendered ineffective in the absence of the CEC. The Supreme Court of India instructed the government to make a decision on the financing of the Election Commission (EC), the Permanent Secretariat, and the requirement that expenditures be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Argumentation of the Government The administration had claimed that in the absence of such a bill by parliament, the President had the constitutional authority, and they requested the Supreme Court to demonstrate judicial restraint.

What exactly is the obstacle?

A concern regarding the separation of powers would arise if the Supreme Court decides to rule on this matter since the constitution gives Parliament the authority to pass any laws regarding the nomination of ECI. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has said that their decision would be subject to any legislation that may be passed by parliament, which indicates that parliament may pass a bill to overturn their decision.

One further point of view is that since there is no legislation passed by parliament regarding this matter, the Supreme Court need to intervene in order to “fill the constitutional vacuum.” Constitutional provisions: Part XV (Articles 324-329) of the Indian Constitution: It deals with elections and creates a commission for these subjects. 

What are the Current Provisions for Nomination to ECI?

ECI Structure: Formerly, there was just one Election Commissioner (EC), but with the Election Commissioner Amendment Act of 1989, the commission was transformed into a multi-member body (1 CEC & 2 other ECs.).

The Chief Electoral Commissioner (CEC) and as many additional election commissioners (if any) as the President may from time to time choose are required to make up the Election Commission in accordance with Article 324.

Article 324(2), Process Regarding Appointments Subject to the requirements of any legislation adopted in that direction by Parliament, the President is the one who will be responsible for making appointments to the positions of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. The Prime Minister is presented with a list of applicants who meet the requirements set out by the Law Minister for consideration. The nomination is made by the President based on the recommendation given by the Prime Minister.

It is up to the President to decide the terms of service and length of stay in office for whomever wins the election. They have a contract that lasts for either six years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first. They have the ability to quit at any moment, or they may be removed from their position before the end of their term.

The only way for the CEC to be removed from office is for Parliament to go through a procedure very much like the one used to remove a Supreme Court judge. It is impossible to remove any other ECs than CEC unless they are recommended to do so by CEC.