• Prof. (Dr.) Anit Singh

In a democracy, the independence of constitutional institutions is paramount to ensuring free and fair elections, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining the separation of powers. However, recent developments surrounding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) in India highlight a troubling trend—an overt attempt by the present government to subvert the autonomy of the Election Commission, thereby eroding the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Subverting Judicial Mandate: A Calculated Power Play

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) sought to ensure a neutral and transparent selection process for appointing the CEC and ECs. By including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alongside the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition in the selection panel, the Court aimed to mitigate undue executive influence. However, the government’s response was swift and calculated—introducing the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which effectively undid this safeguard. The new law replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, tilting the balance overwhelmingly in favor of the ruling party. This brazen move raises serious concerns about the government’s intent, as it consolidates executive control over the very body responsible for conducting impartial elections.

Weakening Institutional Independence: The Bigger Picture

The new law systematically diminishes the Election Commission’s independence. By lowering the status of Election Commissioners from being equivalent to Supreme Court judges, the government has made these officials more susceptible to political pressure. This move is not just an isolated case but part of a larger pattern—one that includes diluting the autonomy of various constitutional bodies, whether it be the judiciary, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), or the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The government’s actions indicate a clear strategy: transform independent institutions into pliable extensions of executive authority.

Judicial Inaction and Executive Overreach

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority and the guardian of the Constitution. Its role is defined by the Constitution of India under Articles 124 to 147. As the guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that all laws and government actions comply with the Constitution of India and has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws (Judicial Review). It can review legislative and executive actions to ensure they align with constitutional principles established in the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), ruling that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

Along with this, the Supreme Court serves as the final interpreter of law, clarifying and interpreting constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court, which is expected to be the bulwark against constitutional transgressions, has been alarmingly hesitant in taking decisive action on the matter. Despite multiple petitions challenging the new law on the grounds of violating Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates free and fair elections, the judiciary has chosen a path of delay, similar to its approach in matters pertaining to the abrogation of Article 370 and the disqualification of MLAs in the previous Maharashtra assembly. The recent adjournment of hearings on February 19, 2025, and the next scheduled session on March 19, 2025, only deepen concerns that judicial inertia is allowing the government to cement its control.

Compounding the issue is the government’s hasty implementation of the law, appointing a new CEC and an EC despite the pending Supreme Court verdict. This blatant disregard for judicial review is a troubling sign of the executive’s unchecked dominance. The opposition, particularly the Congress, has rightly questioned the urgency behind these appointments while the matter remains sub judice. But more than political opposition, it is the larger democratic framework that stands threatened.

The Consequences: A Dangerous Precedent

If the government’s maneuver goes unchallenged, it will set a dangerous precedent where any judicial verdict inconvenient to the ruling dispensation can be overruled through legislative fiat. The erosion of institutional checks and balances paves the way for a majoritarian democracy, where electoral legitimacy becomes a mere procedural formality rather than a substantive democratic exercise.

A Call to Action: Defending Constitutional Morality

The role of an independent Election Commission cannot be overstated—it is the cornerstone of democratic integrity. The present government’s actions are not just about controlling appointments but about reshaping the fundamental ethos of constitutional governance. The Supreme Court must rise to the occasion and assert its authority to preserve institutional integrity. Meanwhile, civil society, opposition parties, and the electorate must remain vigilant and vocal against such constitutional backsliding. The battle for democracy is not fought in a single election but in the ongoing struggle to protect the institutions that ensure its survival. The time to resist executive overreach and uphold constitutional morality is now, before the very fabric of Indian democracy is irreversibly altered.

The author is a spokesperson, Delhi -PCC