Supreme Court asks if there was a ‘proper debate’ in Parliament before enacting CEC/EC appointments law

The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 7, 2026, asked whether there was a “proper debate” in Parliament on the “waste” of the 2023 judgment that took the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India from the exclusive hands of the political executive, i.e. “the party which naturally has no interest in keeping itself in power”.

In a decision dated 2023 Anoop Baranwal vs Union of IndiaThe Constitution Bench of the court replaced the mechanism of the President appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners solely on the advice of the Prime Minister with a more participatory appointment process involving a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The court had said that the committee would remain in office until Parliament passes a replacement law.

The Union government reacted to this decision within months by passing a law returning the dominant role of the executive in appointing CECs and ECs. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023, the CJI was replaced by a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the election committee.

Opposition MPs suspended ahead of debate

“But was there a proper debate in Parliament on the Anoop Baranwal judgment? Are the values ​​expressed in the judgment reflected in the discussions in Parliament? This is not clear,” said Justice Dipankar Datta, who headed the bench comprising himself and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing as an intervener, said that an intervention took place before the law was passed. en masse Dismissal of opposition MPs. “There was no proper debate in Parliament,” he said.

“The majority of the opposition has been suspended. [AIMIM MP Asaduddin] Owaisi was the only objector. He has made important representations that the proposed law does not comply with the Anoop Baranwal decision. The Law Minister responded by saying ‘the court asked us to make a law, which is what we did,'” said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer from the Association for Democratic Reforms.

Inadequate protections

Mr. Bhushan said that the ability to remove the CEC through impeachment was not a sufficient safeguard to preserve the independence of the Election Commission. Appointments to the top poll body should also be independent and transparent, the official added.

Activist CR Neelakandan’s lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj noted that much before the Anoop Baranwal verdict, the Supreme Court had emphasized the “principle of free and fair elections” in the landmark judgment of 1975. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain A decision that triggered the state of emergency.

In its 1975 jurisprudence, he stated that the supreme court held fair and free elections as “a fundamental assumption of democracy and therefore part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

“Other countries have supported the independence of the Election Commission as a fourth branch institution or an autonomous institution that promotes democracy,” Mr. Raj said.

Vijay Hansaria, senior advocate for petitioner-activist Jaya Thakur, said: “Executive dominance in appointments to the Election Commission is having a chilling and real-world impact on election integrity and fairness… A compromised EC sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of other independent institutions.”