This Case Commentary is written by Pritisha Kumari Das, a Third-Year law student of University Law College, Gauhati University

Case name: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India

Citation: 2023 (6) SCC 1

Date of Judgement: January 18, 2023.

Name of the Petitioner: Anoop Baranwal

Name of the Respondent: Union Of India.

Bench: KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, JJ.

Legal Provisions: Article 324(2) Appointment of Election Commission, Article 14 Equality before Law, Article 21- Protection of life and Liberty, Article 324(1), vests, superintendence, direction and control of elections in the election Commission, Article 324(5) authorizes the President to determine the conditions of service and tenure of the election commissioners, “subject to a law” made by parliament and Article 326_ elections to the house of the people and to the legislative assemblies of states to be based on adult suffrage.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 2015, a PIL was filed by Anoop Baranwal, a retired IAS officer, Challenged the constitutionality of the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners.

2. He argued that the current process, where the president appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners is based on the Prime Ministers recommendation, compromised the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.

3. Baranwal sought a fair, transparent, and merit-based appointment process.

4. It discusses the role of the Election Commission and provides for a fairer appointment process until Parliament makes a law in this regard also describes the nature of the Right to Vote.

5. Various writ petition was filed concerning the effect of Article 324, particularly taking into consideration Article 324 (2), concerning the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Whether the current procedure of ECI appointments violate the right to equality?

2. Whether the current process of ECI violate the process of the Right to Free and Fair elections?

3. Whether the existing appointment comprises the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.

4. Article 324 (2), whether the interpretation of this article is in regards to the appointment of CEC and Election commissioners?

5. Raised the issue of ensuring the election commission’s autonomy and independence.

6. Whether capable enough of restoring public trust in the Election Commission?

CASE ANALYSIS

1. To understand the intention of the constitutional-makers behind the enactment of Article 324 by analysing the constitutional assembly debates.

2. Writ petitions were maintained under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, where the court was called upon to consider the true effect of Article 324, specifically taking into consideration Article 324 (2) of the Constitution.

3. It also relied upon Article 53, which deals with the Executive power of the Union, stating that it is contended that the law contemplated under Article 324(2) is the law contemplated under Article 53(3)(b) and where in the absence of such a law, the President emerges as the constitutional power.

4. The court also directed the formation of a committee to recommend names comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition, and Chief Justice of India.

5. The Reliance of this case is also seen in the judgment of the Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 9.

6. Earlier, under the Government of India Act 1935, it was the Executive that primarily made the appointments directly to the Election Commission -under Article 324, which makes a radical departure from this position to ensure the independence of the Election Commission.

7. For the conduct of free and fair elections the court held, to ensure the independence of the Election Commission should be free from all external political interference and, thus, expressly must provide that the removal of the Chief Election Commission from office shall be in like manner as on the grounds as of a Judge of the Supreme Court. And that CAD should be useful as in the case of the judgments of Keshav Anand Bharati (1973) & Maratha Reservation case (2021)

FINAL DECISION OR REVIEW OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court of India is a landmark case judgment that ruled in favour of the petitioner, Anoop Baranwal. However, the Court held that,

- The appointment procedure of the Chief Election Commission and Election Commissioner must be based upon transparency, fair, and merit-based.

- A committee comprised of the Prime Minister, leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice Of India, will only have the power to recommend names for the appointment of EC.

- The president is liable to make appointments based on the above-mentioned recommendations.

- The court also clarified that in case of the absence of the leader of an opposition party, the leader of the largest party in the opposition in the Lok Sabha shall be the member of such committee.

- The apex court also directed for the continuance of this regime until the Parliament enacts relevant legislation. Citing landmark cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and the Third Judges case, the court reiterated the Judiciary’s role in filling gaps in the interest of public welfare.

- The judgment was based upon democratic principles of ensuring transparency and accountability in the process of appointment.

- The court also demonstrated the judicial activism in promoting democratic values.

- The judgment in favour of Anoop Baranwal also paved the way for more comprehensive electoral reforms.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS-

The judgment procedure implementation faced challenges requiring coordination among various stakeholders. It only addressed the appointment process, leaving other aspects of electoral reform to be untouched. The Executive tried to attempt the appointment process, which had led to the impact upon the judgment, also leading to the process of political polarization. The Union also has defended the current mechanism of appointments, citing the ‘honest record’ of all past chief commissioners, where it also urged the court to not intervene, in the manner that the submitting of such must fall within the executive domain.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

After hearing for four consecutive days of substantial arguments in November 2022, the constitution bench decided to change the process for Election Commission appointments to secure their independence. The court declared that in consonance with Article 324 the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be made on the recommendations by a three-member Committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha, and in case no Leader of Opposition is available, the Leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength and the Chief Justice of India and to such it is desirable that the grounds of removal of the Election Commissioners shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner that is on the grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court is subject to the “recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner” as provided under the second proviso to Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India. The conditions of service of the Election Commissioners shall not be varied to the disadvantage after the appointment.

PRECEDENTS OF THE CASE-

1. Advocates-on-Record Association and Another vs. Union of India 1

2. Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare and others, 2

3. Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 5

4. Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 9

5. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.

6. Bhagwati Prashad Dixit Ghorewala v. Rajiv Gandhi

REFERENCES:

1. Supreme court observer, “Election Commission Appointments” , n.d., https://www.scoboberver.in/cases/anoop-baranwal-v-union-of-india-election-commission-appointments-background/ 19.09.2024

2. J.P Associates, “ Analysis of Supreme Court’s Landmark”, 09-02-2024, https://jpassociates.co.in/analysis-of-supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-anoop-baranwal-v-union-of-india-reforming-the-appointment-process-of-election-commissioners/ , 19.09.2024

3. K.M. Joseph, indiankanoon.org, n.d, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56882156, 19.09.2024.