CITATION
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 2nd March, 2023.
- PETITIONER: Anoop Baranwal
- RESPONDENT: Union of India
- BENCH: Honourable Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
- LEGAL PROVISIONS: The Constitution of India
- CITATION: W.P.(C) 114/2015
FACTS
Several public interest lawsuits were brought before the Supreme Court to examine how the Election Commission of India was appointed according to Article 324. The CEC and other election commissioners are chosen by the Indian president under Article 324(2). The appointments will follow the laws set by the Parliament regarding this matter. The legislation stipulates that the legislative body establishes an election commission through a procedure outlined in the law. The parliament hasn’t enacted any legislation regarding it for nearly seven decades. The council of ministers advised the appointments, led by the prime minister. The petitioners argued that there was no law, which undermined the Commission’s independence. The apex court was asked to order the Parliament to create a law for appointing or forming an advisory group to guarantee the impartiality and openness in electing officials.
ISSUES
1. Is there an absence of laws in Article 324(2)? If there’s a hole, let the judge fix it.
2. Should the protections provided for the Chief Election Commissioner also apply to the other Election Commissioners?
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER SIDE
1. In the absence of any law that defines who qualifies as an Election Commissioner, there’s no legal framework governing this position. The judiciary should act quickly to close this gap because free and fair elections are crucial for maintaining a democratic society. A democratic system can operate effectively if it relies on an impartial authority for election processes.
2. The Supreme Court has stepped in to make changes about how elections work, especially when it comes to choosing MP’s and MLAs, deciding who owns their money, and stopping people from voting at the same place.
3. Prashant Bhushan argued that the current system for choosing officials does not match up with Article 324(2). It also breaks Article 14 because it’s unfair.
1. The right to vote is a constitutional entitlement that is infringed upon during election processes where impartial authorities do not oversee them.
2. The Election Commission has power to settle disputes among people. It can create political groups, assign emblems, to uphold ethical standards. Many times, the governing body gets caught up in the conflict. An executive alone participating in an appointment will be influenced by personal biases. Petitioners depended on Supreme Court advocates who were listed as on record and another case. The Union of India supports their claim.
3. The Report of Justice Madan Lokur, which points out the inconsistency of the ECI in enforcing the ethical was referenced alongside the 255th Law Commission Report, which suggested various electoral changes, such as appointing ECs based on recommendations by a three-member panel.
4. Older people have been chosen for important jobs by election committees, which means they will stay in those positions for shorter periods of time. The commission’s independence relies on how it chooses who gets appointed. Most commissioners were former bureaucrats. The appointment made by the Executive alone classifies it as a partisan body and an executive branch.
5. Petitioners called for setting up a similar committee to suggest candidates to the Election Commission to maintain its impartiality. The group proposed that equal protection should be given to the EC as it is offered to the CEC under Article 324(5).
RESPONDENT SIDE
1. The Indian Attorney General, well-versed in law, rejected the notion that there exists an absence of legal oversight for election commission positions. The Constitution establishes an approach for making appointments, whereas Article 324(2) does not impose a constitutional obligation upon the Parliament to enact legislation.
2. The respondent stressed the importance of limiting judges’ involvement in legislation. The court’s involvement here goes against the principle of dividing governmental functions. The court should act if a basic right is at stake. Policy matters should not be subject to legal interference.
3. A committee forming to suggest names for the ECI should avoid following the President’s actions based on the Council of Ministers’ advice as per Article 74 of the constitution. Based on T. N. Seshan v Union of India, it was argued that the President has the power to appoint the Election Commission.
4. The government selects civil servants for Election Commissioner positions due to their perceived suitability.
RATIO DECIDENDI AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 142(9) of the Constitution, decided by an overwhelming majority that it must oversee the election commission’s member selection process. The Supreme Court instructed a committee of three members to draft recommendations before a law can be enacted by the Parliament. The committee will consist of:
the Prime Minister,
The person who leads the opposition in the Lok Sabha, or if they’re not available, the leader of the biggest opposition group in the Lok Sabha.
the Chief Justice of India
The court based its ruling on the idea that judges should actively participate to safeguard and maintain the rights of citizens within a democratic society. The highest court examined the idea of judges acting boldly in law, alongside maintaining the system’s balance. An activist’s strategy supports democracy by meeting the requirements of less powerful members in society. J. Rastogi stated that the court’s authority stems from Article 142, enabling it to make any order necessary for absolute justice.
The Constituent Assembly debates showed that the people who wrote the rules agreed that the person in charge should be chosen by the whole group of leaders. Without any laws in place and an appointment given by the executive with full discretion, it would inevitably lead to the misuse of power. Democracy’s fundamental principles are compromised by this action.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and the Third Judges case, the court highlighted situations where it intervened to address legal deficiencies for the greater good of society. The Constitution’s meanings need changing to fit today’s hopes.
Making laws requires authority and can’t be forced. The Parliament was asked by the Court to create a law but refused. Legislation vital for Art 324(2) comes into existence. The increasing tendency towards political criminalization and the significant impact of financial influence in election processes necessitate the establishment of an independent entity, the EC, free from partisan influences.
The observation noted that the sole difference in treatment between EC and CEC lies in the inability of CEC’s service conditions to change against him once appointed. This protection does not apply to the remaining ECs. However, merely being an advisory member doesn’t make him just that. The decisions of the CECs regarding everything are not final. The Background Paper on Electoral Reform was referenced by the Ministry of Law & Justice for constitutional protection of other electoral commissions. It was decided that protecting the role of the Election Commissioner from government control is essential. The court expanded protections for all ECs beyond those originally provided to CEC.
The court noted in its deliberations during the Constitutional Assembly debates that the founders established a constitutional right to vote for all adult citizens as per Article 326. It can be limited when it’s disqualified according to what’s stated there. The court reaffirmed its decision in the PUCL case, stating that the right to vote is an expression of freedom as per Article 19(1)(a).
ANALYSIS
Democracy relies on elections as an essential component of its foundational framework outlined in our Constitution. Elections form the backbone of democratic governance. A neutral and impartial Election Commission conducts free and fair elections which are crucial for the smooth operation of a democracy. This decision aims to safeguard the Commission’s autonomy. It must be shielded from executive control. The Supreme Court established concerning a constitutional rule for the very first time.
The highest court is taking action to fill the holes left by lawmakers’ lack of effort. The delicate balance of separating power must be preserved. Judicial activism must not escalate beyond what’s permitted by the Constitution’s principles. Courts’ restraint preserves judicial balance by ensuring branches work together fairly.
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India represents a significant step in supporting India’s democratic architecture through protecting the independence of the Election Commission. Where there was a process that ensured essentially no oversight on elected representatives, courts can now be called to intervene on these processes; if anything, by mandating the Chief Justice of India be involved in the process, the separation of powers (while reduced) has at least provided some transparency to the process. The courts made the argument that free and fair elections mean that the Election Commission is an independent institution, in accordance with the constitution, rather than an executive arm of the government that is beholden to the influence of political parties. There will be challenges in implementation, but the case paves the way for democratic reforms as it sent a clear signal that democracies are only facilitated by independence and accountability in electoral institutions.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
