Answer

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutional body under Article 324, ensures free and fair elections. Its independence is crucial for democratic integrity. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, redefined the appointment process, sparking debates over executive influence. 

Positives of the changes introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023

• Defined Selection Process: The Act establishes a structured process for selecting the CEC and ECs, ensuring greater transparency compared to the earlier ad-hoc executive discretion.
• Eligibility Criteria Introduced: The Act mandates that appointees must have integrity, election management experience, and prior government service at the Secretary level, ensuring qualified candidates.
  For example: Earlier, there was no requirement for election-related experience. This change prevents the appointment of individuals lacking relevant expertise, thereby enhancing administrative competence.
• Retains Fixed Tenure: The six-year term or retirement at 65 years remains unchanged, ensuring that Commissioners cannot be arbitrarily removed or reappointed, preserving their independence.
  For example: During tenure of  T.N. Seshan (1990–96) demonstrated how a fixed tenure empowers a strong CEC to resist political pressure and enforce election laws effectively.
• Codifies Salary and Service Conditions: By equating the salary of CEC and ECs with the Supreme Court judge, the Act provides financial security, reducing external pressures on Election Commissioners.
• Retention of Removal Safeguards: The CEC’s removal still follows the same process as a Supreme Court judge, and ECs can only be removed upon the CEC’s recommendation, preventing undue interference.
  For example: In 2009, EC Navin Chawla faced allegations of bias, but his removal required a CEC recommendation, reinforcing institutional safeguards.

Shortcomings of the changes introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023

• Increased Executive Influence: Replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister in the selection committee tilts control towards the ruling government, weakening impartiality.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment had proposed a selection panel including the CJI to ensure neutrality, which the Act reversed, raising concerns of political bias.
• Limited Diversity in Selection: By restricting candidates to current or former Secretaries, the Act excludes experienced election officials, legal experts, or civil society representatives, limiting diverse expertise.
  For example: Former CEC T.N. Seshan (an IAS officer) revolutionized election management, but a broader selection pool could bring fresh perspectives and reforms.
• No Parliamentary Oversight: The law does not include a parliamentary confirmation process, which could have added a layer of democratic accountability and bipartisan scrutiny in appointments.
• Pending Supreme Court Challenge: The Act is under judicial review, with concerns that it contradicts the principles set by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal, creating uncertainty about its long-term validity.
  For example: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure, and judicial scrutiny may determine if this Act weakens democracy.

Impact of the Changes on the Independence and Functioning of the Election Commission of India

• Reduced Institutional Autonomy: Replacing the CJI with a Union Minister in the selection panel gives the Executive greater say in appointments, which may compromise the neutrality.
• Potential Political Bias in Decision-Making: A selection process dominated by the government may lead to the appointment of Commissioners inclined towards the ruling party, impacting free and fair elections.
  For example: During the Lok Sabha elections, CEC T.S. Krishnamurthy resisted pressures from the ruling  government, ensuring an impartial electoral process. A politically influenced EC might not do the same.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Any perception of government interference in the EC’s functioning can reduce voter confidence in electoral outcomes, affecting democratic legitimacy.
  For example: In 2019, concerns were raised when the EC gave a clean chit to ruling party leaders for Model Code of Conduct violations, sparking debates on bias.
• Weaker Enforcement of Election Laws: An EC influenced by the Executive may hesitate to act against ruling party violations, weakening accountability in electoral practices.
• Risk of Bureaucratic Influence: Equating the EC’s salary with a Cabinet Secretary’s status could reduce its authority, making it more of an administrative body than an independent constitutional institution.

Way Forward to Strengthen the Election Commission’s Independence

• Restore Judicial Representation in Selection: Including the Chief Justice of India or a retired SC judge in the selection committee would balance executive control and uphold judicial neutrality.
• Parliamentary Approval for Appointments: The selection process should involve parliamentary scrutiny to enhance transparency and bipartisan consensus in appointing Election Commissioners.
• Expand the Eligibility Pool: Instead of restricting selection to government Secretaries, the pool should include former Election Commissioners, legal experts, and public policy professionals.
  For example: Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi had expertise in democratic governance, which helped improve voter awareness and electoral reforms.
• Strengthen Financial Autonomy: The Election Commission should have independent budgetary powers, rather than being financially dependent on the Executive, ensuring operational independence.
• Judicial Safeguards Against Arbitrary Decisions: Any appointment or removal of an EC member should be subject to judicial review, preventing arbitrary decisions by the ruling government.
  For example: In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court upheld electoral fairness, highlighting the need for a truly independent EC.

Fortifying independence through the 2023 reforms redefines the Election Commission’s mandate and reinforces transparency and accountability. Embracing proactive reforms and balanced governance cultivates a resilient electoral framework that meets future challenges head-on. “Empower Democracy, Secure Tomorrow!” This forward-thinking approach ensures sustained fairness, preserving electoral integrity and strengthening our democratic foundations for a vibrant future.

DOWNLOAD PDF