CJI was only meant to have a say in CEC/EC appointments till Parliament brought a law: Supreme Court
Practice PYQs on this topic
500+ questions on Polity with explanations
📌 Summary:
-
The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister on the appointment committee for Election Commission of India (ECI) members.
-
In the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment, the SC had directed that the CJI be included in the appointment panel as a temporary measure — a "stop-gap" arrangement — until Parliament enacted a suitable law on ECI appointments.
-
The 2023 Act established a committee comprising the Prime Minister (Chair), the Leader of Opposition, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, effectively giving the political executive dominant control over ECI appointments.
-
Petitioners (Association for Democratic Reforms and Jaya Thakur) contend that substituting the CJI with a Cabinet Minister undermines the independence of the Election Commission and violates constitutional principles of free and fair elections.
-
The Supreme Court refused to adjourn the hearing, stating the matter is "more important" and must be heard on merits, signalling judicial seriousness about protecting electoral institution independence.
-
The case raises fundamental constitutional questions: whether Parliament can legislate to dilute court-mandated safeguards; the balance between legislative supremacy and judicial interpretation of constitutional silence; and the structural independence required for a constitutional body like the ECI.
UPSC Classification
See PYQs related to “Polity”
Every classification tag above links to actual UPSC questions asked on that topic — with answer, explanation and elimination logic. Only in the app.