A bill has been introduced in Parliament proposing to remove the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the committee responsible for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. This significant legislative change has sparked discussions about the independence of the Election Commission of India.
The inclusion of the Chief Justice in the selection committee was established by a Constitution Bench led by retired Justice K.M. Joseph. This decision was based on a recommendation from a committee chaired by the then Law Minister Dinesh Goswami in 1990. The primary aim of this recommendation was to facilitate electoral reforms and bolster the autonomy of the Election Commission of India.
The judgment from March declared that the CJI should remain part of a three-member panel, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, for selecting the CEC until new legislation is enacted. The Goswami committee suggested that the CEC be appointed by the President, in consultation with the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Law Commission of India supported the Goswami recommendations in its 255th report in March 2015, aiming to fortify the Election Commission's office and ensure its neutrality. The Law Commission proposed that all appointments of Election Commissioners be made by the President, following advice from a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the CJI.
The proposed bill to exclude the Chief Justice from the selection committee contradicts the recommendations aimed at enhancing the Election Commission's independence and neutrality, as suggested by multiple committees and endorsed by the Law Commission of India.
In 2015, Anoop Baranwal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), arguing that the existing appointment system for members of the Election Commission of India (ECI) is unconstitutional. The PIL asserted that the Executive's power to make appointments has compromised the ECI's independence over time. It seeks to establish an independent, collegium-like system for ECI appointments.
The PIL claims that the current appointment process violates Article 324(2) of the Constitution. This article states that while the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners are appointed by the President, such appointments must adhere to Parliamentary law where applicable. Despite this requirement, Parliament has yet to enact such a law, leading the President to follow the Prime Minister's recommendations.
In 2018, the matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. In March 2023, the Bench decided to revise the process for appointing Election Commissioners to ensure their independence. It established a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India to make recommendations for appointments until Parliament enacts a specific law.
The ongoing discussions surrounding the removal of the Chief Justice from the selection committee pose significant implications for the electoral framework in India. The focus remains on safeguarding the independence and integrity of the Election Commission amidst evolving legislative changes.
Q1. What is the purpose of the bill regarding the Chief Justice of India?
Answer: The bill aims to remove the Chief Justice of India from the committee responsible for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, which is seen as a challenge to electoral reforms.
Q2. How does the current appointment system for Election Commissioners work?
Answer: Currently, the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners are appointed by the President based on recommendations from the Prime Minister, but this has been criticized for affecting the ECI's independence.
Q3. What recommendations did the Law Commission make regarding appointments?
Answer: The Law Commission suggested that appointments of Election Commissioners should involve a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice to ensure neutrality and independence.
Q4. What was the outcome of Anoop Baranwal's PIL?
Answer: The PIL argued for an independent, collegium-like system for ECI appointments, emphasizing that the current system undermines the ECI's independence and violates Article 324(2) of the Constitution.
Q5. What is the significance of the March 2023 decision by the Constitution Bench?
Answer: The Constitution Bench established a committee for recommending Election Commission appointments, aiming to enhance independence until Parliament enacts a relevant law.
Question 1: What is the main aim of the bill introduced in Parliament regarding the CJI?
A) To enhance the CJI's powers
B) To remove the CJI from the selection committee for the CEC
C) To appoint more judges
D) To dissolve the Election Commission
Correct Answer: B
Question 2: Who was the head of the committee that recommended including the CJI in the selection process?
A) Dinesh Goswami
B) K.M. Joseph
C) Anoop Baranwal
D) Law Minister
Correct Answer: A
Question 3: What does Article 324(2) of the Constitution pertain to?
A) Appointment of the President
B) Appointment of Election Commissioners
C) Judiciary powers
D) Electoral reforms
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
