Anoop Baranwal v. Union Of India

Chahat

University Institute of legal studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh

It has been written by Chahat, a third-year law student of University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh

Case No.-  Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104/2015

Decided on-  02-03-2023

Court-  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Parties-

    Petitioner- Anoop Baranwal

    Respondent- Union of India

Statutes- The Constitution of India

INTRODUCTION

For the maintenance of ECI's independence and guarantee its unbiased functioning, the five-judge panel heard arguments for an independent method of nomination of commissioners. The historic ruling on election changes is very consequential and could have a big impact on how transparently the country conducts elections which calls for altering the procedure for designating India's top election administrators. The legal precedent comprises of the issues associated with the ECI’s appointment as well as its autonomy. The ECI has the responsibility to organize free & fair elections in the country. This case questions the constitutionality of appointment of the CEC and the ECs and the transparency that shrouds the ECI, how viable is the independence of the ECI?

FACTS

  • The petitioner sought to seek change by filing a PIL which was filed in 2015 regarding the procedure that goes into the appointment of the CEC and the ECs. The PIL argued that the present appointment method violates the Article 324(2). A new 'Collegium-like' system for picking election commission officials was needed.

  • They raised concerns about the independence and transparency of the ECI which is essential for ensuring free and fair elections. According to Article 324, the President may nominate the CEC and EC, but only if it complies with parliamentary legislation. In the lack of such a statute, the President has been appointing members of the panel based on the PM's suggestion.

  • This issue was linked to and resolved by a number of related petitions from other leaders, the Association for Democratic Reforms, and others.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Does the current ECI appointment procedure violate the equality right?

  2. Is there a contradiction between the current ECI selection procedure and the right to free and fair elections?

CONTENTIONS ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

  • The petitioner relied on Art.324 - which grants the superintendence, direction & control of the election to ECI. It was pointed that the framers of the Constitution had in their mind that ECI must work independently and in bilateral manner.

  • He argued that the executive dominated this process and the executive only appointment meant that the ECI would not be independent.

  • It was pointed out that in other countries election commissioners are nominated in a more independent and transparent manner, that is with the participation of different representatives. They also advocated that the same protection must be extended to the EC as is available to the CEC.

  • They demanded that, as with the collegium system used to nominate judges in the higher courts, these nominations be done by a body independent of the executive branch and with more transparency. It was argued that since the ECI is a quasi-judicial body which is responsible for conducting elections. Therefore, its independence is a necessary precondition for free and fair elections to maintain the spirit of democracy as recognized in the landmark case of 1973.

CONTENTIONS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

  • The respondents strongly opposed the encroachment of the judiciary into the affairs of the executive through prescription of the way the appointments to the ECI should be made. They argued that the present structure is constitutionally made, & that any changes should come from the lawmakers, not the courts.

  • They also argued that the executive must be involved in the process of appointment so that the executive can be able to check the other arms of government.

  • Further respondents argued that the power to pass a law concerning the composition of the members of the ECI is in the hand of the Parliament does not necessarily create a mandatory requirement of the legislature to exercise the power.

  • It was pointed out that the COI provides adequate measure for the prevention of erosion of independence and impartiality of the ECI. They characterized previous judgments made by the superior courts that have endorsed the current mode of appointment as constitutionally workable and feasible to ensure the ECI’s autonomy.

JUDGMENT

Before making a judgment, the Court took into account the arguments put out by the parties, the circumstances surrounding this matter, and the fundamental legal criteria regarding the appointment of the EC’s. Elections and the various organs involved in the election processes were explored with emphasis on CEC and the ECs in as much as they provide a balance election process.

The court also referred to other countries’ practices concerning the appointment of election commissioners. Referrals were made to procedures that existed in other nations such as USA, Canada, and the UK. The judgment required that the process followed to make the appointments must be subject to scrutiny in a bid to be in concordance with the constitution.

The very judgment directed the creation of the high-powered committee and it'll have the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader (from the Lok Sabha) and the Chief Justice of India. Their task is to recommend people for the Election Commission chief & other members. The Court enlightened the petitioner’s apprehensions regarding the situation and it was conceded by the Court that this setup might result in the executive interference in the functioning of the ECI. The SC agreed – elections must be fair & free in a democracy. And for that there is need for an impartial & independent Election body (to conduct polls properly). So, this committee will ensure the right people are appointed to keep things neutral. The Vishakha Guidelines for Sexual Harassment at the Workplace are among the significant stopgap remedies that the courts have deemed necessary in certain previous cases.

The Court quoted the Constituent Assembly Debates to conclude that the founders of the Constitution did not want the ECI to act under political and executive pressure. The court reaffirmed the judiciary's responsibility in bridging gaps in the public welfare interest by citing significant cases such as 1998 case and 1977 case.

CONCLUSION

The court underlined the necessity that ECI work independently and in a free manner without any interference from executive decisions. In fact, they said the current system - where the executive branch alone makes the appointments - could put the ECI's independence in danger. Since the Court had to deal with a constitutional gap here (no parliamentary law on appointment process so far), they temporarily solved it by forming a committee with the PM, Leader of Opposition, & CJI. It stressed upon accountability and openness of the ECI. It emphasized how the ECI should be transparent and accountable. Therefore, to increase public confidence in the election process, the rule suggested procedures for choosing election officials. In conclusion, the judgement of Supreme Court of India intended to increase the independence and autonomy of the ECI through changes in the process of appointment and adding executive accountability.

REFERENCES-

  1. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India; [2023] 9 S.C.R 1

  2. Indian Constitution Article 324, cl. 5.

  3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala; AIR 1973 SC 1461

  4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan; (1997) 6 SCC 241

  5. Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re (1998) 7 SCC 739

  6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan; (1997) 6 SCC 241