Overcoming the “Narrow, Excessively Legalistic” Discussion over the SC Election Commission’s Decision

Last Updated on April 7, 2023 by Administrator

Issue

The Supreme Court’s most recent decision on the appointment of the chief electoral commission and election commissioners was overly legalistic and restricted to the institution’s constitutional and legal structure and judicial interpretations of the status and authority of the Election Commission of India.

Facts of the case

The five-member constitution bench’s most recent ruling was based on a number of petitions that were “maintained” under Article 32, filed in the public interest by Anup Baranwal in 2015 and by numerous others at various times, whereby the Court was “called upon to consider the true effect of Article 324 and, in particular, Article 324(2) of the Constitution.”

Arguments

According to the petitions, successive union administrations have chosen CEC and EC appointees since the parliament has not passed laws governing the manner of appointment and requirements for these positions.

Reasoning

The petitions also made reference to what they thought to be a “lacuna” in the removal of ECs process as outlined in Clause 5 of Article 324. The President can remove ECs simply on the recommendation of the CEC, though the suggestion is not legally binding on the President, in contrast to the CEC, who must be impeached by a two-thirds majority of the parliament on the proven charges of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity,” like in the case of a Supreme Court judge.

Judgement

A committee comprised of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India must submit the names of the CEC and ECs to the President for appointments, the five-member constitution court ruled unanimously. Future legislation passed by the parliament “shall be subject to any law made hereunder.” For the purpose of closing the “legislative vacuum,” the Court used its “plenary power under Article 142.” The “lack of any legislation” and the “views stated” in “several reports of the Law Commission and Election Commission” served as the foundation for the use of the aforementioned Article.

Provisions used in the case

• Article 324(2), Article 142, of the Indian constitution

Written By – Nikita Shankar