In March 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a landmark ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
To prevent executive dominance, the Court created a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
The Court explicitly stated that this was a temporary fix until parliament enacted a law under Article 324(2).
While passing the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, parliament replaced the Chief Justice on the panel with a Union cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Under the guise of "following the Court’s directive to make a law," the executive gave statutory permanence to the exact monopoly the Court had condemned.
To understand how the current crisis descended into existential farce, one must strip away the legalese and look at the spirit of the law.
In March 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a landmark ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India. The Court’s core ruling was simple: free and fair elections cannot exist if the referees (Election Commissioners) are handpicked exclusively by the ruling party. To prevent executive dominance, the Court created a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
The Court explicitly stated that this was a temporary fix until parliament enacted a law under Article 324(2). The intent was unmistakable - any future law passed by parliament had to preserve institutional neutrality. And parliament did make a law. However, in doing so, it seized upon the word "interim" while completely discarding the judgment's underlying sentiment. While passing the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, parliament replaced the Chief Justice on the panel with a Union cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. It was under this contested law that CEC Gyanesh Kumar was appointed.
Under the guise of "following the Court’s directive to make a law," the executive gave statutory permanence to the exact monopoly the Court had condemned. With two government votes against one opposition vote, the Leader of the Opposition was reduced to what Justice Dipankar Datta would later characterise as an "ornamental" spectator.
