Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, 2 March 2023

Advertisements

FACTS:

• Anoop Baranwal filed a PIL in January 2015 asserting that the current process for choosing the CEC and election commissioners is illegal. Even though Article 324 clearly requires the Parliament to devise a relevant law, such appointments to the Election Commission of India (ECI) are made by the President on the Prime Minister’s proposal.
• The petitioner made the case that the Election Commission’s members must be chosen in a way that is just, fair, and transparent. A few related petitions submitted by Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and the Association for Democratic Reforms, among others, were combined with this case and decided together.

ISSUES

1.Whether the current procedure for ECI appointments violates the right to equality.

2. Does the current selection procedure for the ECI contradict the right to free and fair elections?

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

The petitioner claimed that there is no legislation governing the appointment of Election Commissioners in writ petition number on the Election Commission appoints. Another appeal was supported by Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankara Narayanan, who asserted that Article 324(2) of the Constitution does not provide the criteria for choosing an Election Commissioner.

 Counsel raised significant objections with the nomination in their arguments. Additionally, it was noted that no one had been appointed by the central government to the Election Commission to serve the full six-year term. The issue of the Election Commission’s independence has received enough attention. A selection committee that included the Chief Justice of India, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister was also suggested by attorney Bhushan. Currently, the Chief Election Commissioner and two other election commissioners are appointed by the President based on suggestions given by the Council of Ministers, which is presided over by the Prime Minister.

To guarantee an open hiring procedure, counsel Sankara Narayanan also suggested a three-person committee made up of the chief justice, the prime minister, and the leader of the opposition.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

The Union of India was represented by R. Venkatraman, Attorney General of India. The Separation of Powers served as the foundation for the submissions. Council contended that it is not within the judiciary’s purview to invalidate a constitutional provision. The only thing the judge can do is interpret and extend the application of an existing statute. On behalf of the Parliament, the judiciary is unable to act in any way that goes beyond what is expressly permitted by law, including by making or enacting laws (a power that only the legislature and government can utilization). In response to claims that there is a gap in Article 324(2), Additional Attorney General Balbir Singh claimed that there is no need to fill up in the first place, hence there is no need to complete any such guidelines. Singh added in his defence that the appointment process had not shown any signs of bias or constitutional violations.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court focused on its concern about the lack of statutory provisions for the nomination of members of the ECI, but it did not order the Government to adopt a statute according to Article 324(2) as requested by the petitioners. The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ultimately decided to change the selection procedure for the Election Commission in order to ensure their independence. In accordance with a directive, a committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament, and the Chief Justice of India was established to provide advice and recommendations to the President regarding the appointment of members to the Election Commission until a separate law was passed on the matter.

Considering a term and The Court ruled that the Election Commissioners’ and Regional Commissioners’ terms of service must follow the Rule, but they must also be subject to any laws passed by the Parliament. The Court noted that a permanent Secretariat is urgently required with regard to the issue of establishing an independent Secretariat and that the costs associated with such a Secretariat should be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. For the purpose of the Election Commission’s actual independence, the Supreme Court urged the Union to take into account making the required modifications in this area.

CONCLUSION

Democracy’s foundation is based on people’s right to freely choose their government, as well as their belief in democratic institutions, which is upheld by conducting fair elections through a neutral, independent body. The founding fathers’ extraordinary vision and intelligence enabled the creation of a tool that has endured as a potent watchdog of democracy.

Former Chief Election Commissioner Dr. S.Y. Quraishi stated in 2014 that two significant reforms were required to strengthen the independence of the Election Commission: “(a) the Commission’s budget should come directly from the Consolidated Fund of India, as in the case of the Chief Election Commissioner (CAG). An independent secretariat for the Commission should be appointed, following the model of the secretariats of the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha, and the Supreme Court Registry. These changes have been effectively implemented in the current case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, giving tremendous symbolic importance in the public perspective. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s charitable interpretation of the Constitution’s provisions and the legislation pertaining to elections and the Election Commission is a vital contributor to the Commission’s power and respect in the present.

THIS IS WRITTEN BY A. DARRIN, ST. JOESEPH`S COLLEGE OF LAW BANGALORE AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA

Admin