Free and fair elections constitute the cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy and remain indispensable to the legitimacy of its political system.
Election Commission And Contemporary Concerns
Democratic principle under scrutiny
The conduct of free and fair elections forms an integral component of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, as affirmed in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). In recent years, however, questions have emerged regarding the impartiality of the electoral process, culminating in an Opposition resolution seeking the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
Allegations regarding electoral rolls
Much of the controversy revolves around claims of “vote theft” and alleged manipulation of electoral rolls, particularly during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Critics assert that large-scale irregularities in voter lists have occurred, with allegations that certain communities, including minorities, have been disproportionately affected.
Appointment Of Election Commissioners
Legislative overhaul of appointment procedures
Debate intensified following the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Office and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the earlier 1991 law and now governs appointments and removals.
Composition of the selection committee
Under the 2023 Act, election commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition.
Judicial objections and renewed litigation
This arrangement drew criticism for allegedly contradicting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), which had directed the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the selection panel. The exclusion of the judiciary was perceived as a potential threat to institutional independence. The law is currently under challenge in Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2024), with the next hearing scheduled for March 2026.
Constitutional Mandate Of The Election Commission
Authority under Article 324
Article 324 of the Constitution establishes a permanent Election Commission vested with the power of superintendence, direction, and control over elections to the offices of President, Vice-President, Parliament, and State Legislatures. This constitutional entrenchment forms the basis of the Commission’s autonomy.
Tenure and service conditions
The 2023 Act prescribes a six-year tenure for the CEC or continuation until the age of 65, whichever occurs earlier. Importantly, the conditions of service of the CEC cannot be altered to their disadvantage during their term.
Removal safeguards
Article 324(5) provides that the CEC may be removed only in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge, as specified in Article 124(4), on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. This high threshold reflects the intention to insulate the office from executive interference.
Removal Of Other Election Commissioners
- Presidential action on CEC’s advice: Election Commissioners other than the CEC may be removed by the President, but only upon the advice of the CEC.
- Judicial clarification on discretion: In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court clarified that the CEC must not tender such advice suo motu, thereby ensuring a balance between executive authority and institutional independence.
Institutional Position Of The Chief Election Commissioner
- Evolution into a multi-member body: Although Article 324 envisages a CEC along with other commissioners and regional commissioners, the Commission became permanently multi-member in 1993. This arrangement was upheld by the Supreme Court in T. N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995).
- Role as chairperson: Clause (3) of Article 324 specifies that when other Election Commissioners are appointed, the CEC shall function as the Chairperson of the Commission. This designates the CEC as the presiding authority while encouraging collective, consensus-based decision-making.
- Rationale behind the structure: The constitutional framework seeks to combine administrative efficiency with collegial governance, ensuring that electoral management is both authoritative and participatory.
Procedure For Removal Of The CEC
- Parliamentary and quasi-judicial nature: The process of removing the CEC is deliberately complex and quasi-judicial, designed to prevent arbitrary action. While the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951 govern electoral conduct, Section 11 of the 2023 Act outlines the procedure for removal.
- Initiation of motion: Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a motion must be supported by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker or Chairman may then admit or reject the motion.
- Constitution of inquiry committee: If admitted, a three-member committee is formed comprising the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. Where notices are submitted in both Houses simultaneously, the committee is constituted only after acceptance by both.
- Principles of natural justice: Specific charges must be framed, and the CEC must be granted adequate opportunity to present a defence. In cases involving alleged physical or mental incapacity, a medical examination by an authorised board is required. These safeguards uphold the doctrine of fair hearing.
Political Dimensions And Democratic Balance
- Likelihood of parliamentary success: Although the Opposition has expressed its intent to proceed through democratic mechanisms, the ruling alliance’s majority in Parliament makes the passage of such a motion improbable. The government has denied allegations of bias.
- Respect for constitutional institutions: For democracy to function effectively, constitutional bodies must command confidence and respect from citizens, political parties, and the government alike. Persistent attacks on their legitimacy risk eroding public trust.
- Risks of politicisation: While dissent against institutional actions is legitimate, excessive politicisation of constitutional bodies could weaken democratic governance. The constitutional order depends upon maintaining a careful balance between state authority and individual liberty, a balance that is central to India’s democratic ethos.