AMID a heated debate about the role played by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the just-concluded West Bengal elections, the very law governing the appointment of the poll panel’s members is under judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. In its March 2023 verdict, the Court had ordered that the ECI’s members be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha — till a law was made by Parliament. The law, which was eventually enacted in December that year, excluded the CJI from the selection process; instead, it included a Union Cabinet minister — to be nominated by the PM — among the committee’s three members.
It’s obvious that this arrangement gives an edge to the executive, represented by the PM and the Cabinet minister, whose recommendations will count even if the LoP disagrees with them. Even as the ECI continues to be under fire from the Opposition over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bengal, it’s imperative to devise a fair mechanism for these vital appointments.
The independence of the ECI is a constitutional mandate. It can ensure free and fair elections across the country only if it is insulated from executive interference. The Court has stated that its 2023 judgment did not lay down norms for Parliament to frame the law in any particular manner. Thus, the onus is on the legislature to take the initiative of amending the Act so that no questions or doubts are raised about the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. At stake is the ECI’s credibility — and also the health of our electoral democracy. ‘One Nation, One Election’ can wait; the priority right now should be to make the law loophole-free.
