Why in the News?

The independence of Election Commission of India as an issue has resurfaced following allegations of large-scale irregularities in electoral rolls, particularly during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, where nearly 65 lakh voters were reportedly deleted. The Opposition has moved a resolution seeking removal of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), marking a rare and politically significant development. The controversy also follows the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which altered the appointment process after the Supreme Court’s intervention in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).

Does Article 324 Provide Adequate Constitutional Safeguards for Electoral Autonomy?

1. Constitutional Mandate: The Election Commission of India derives authority from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Ensures centralized electoral authority insulated from executive interference.
2. Security of Tenure: CEC removal follows procedure identical to Supreme Court judges under Article 124(4). Ensures high threshold for removal.
3. Protection of Conditions of Service: Service conditions cannot be varied to disadvantage after appointment. Prevents executive pressure.
4. Institutional Permanence: Establishes ECI as a constitutional body, not a statutory authority. Strengthens structural autonomy.

How Has the 2023 Appointment Law Altered the Balance Between Executive and Institutional Independence?

1. Legislative Intervention: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced earlier executive practice. Regulates appointment and removal.
2. Selection Committee Composition: Includes Prime Minister, Union Minister, and Leader of Opposition. Excludes Chief Justice of India (as mandated temporarily in Anoop Baranwal judgment).
3. Judicial Background: Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed inclusion of CJI until Parliament enacted a law. Strengthened interim institutional balance.
4. Subsequent Change: Parliament removed CJI from the selection panel. Raises concerns regarding executive dominance.
5. Institutional Impact: Alters equilibrium between executive participation and perceived neutrality.

Do Allegations Regarding Electoral Roll Revisions Indicate Structural Weaknesses in Electoral Administration?

1. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Conducted to update voter rolls. Ensures accuracy and elimination of duplication.
2. Reported Deletions: Approximately 65 lakh voters allegedly deleted in Bihar during SIR exercise. Raises questions regarding procedural safeguards.
3. Democratic Significance: Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise. Voter deletion directly affects representational legitimacy.
4. Administrative Transparency: Requires verification, notice, and opportunity to respond. Ensures natural justice.
5. Institutional Credibility: Large-scale deletion without adequate communication undermines public trust.

What Is the Constitutional Procedure for Removal of the CEC and Other Commissioners?

1. CEC Removal: Follows impeachment-like process under Article 324(5) read with Article 124(4). Requires special majority in Parliament.
2. Other Commissioners: Removable on recommendation of CEC. Ensures hierarchical internal protection.
3. Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 Framework: Provides investigative procedure in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity.
4. Parliamentary Safeguard: High voting threshold prevents arbitrary removal.
5. Accountability Mechanism: Balances independence with constitutional responsibility.

Does Political Contestation Around the ECI Undermine Democratic Legitimacy?

1. Bipartisan Respect: Constitutional bodies require cross-party legitimacy. Strengthens democratic culture.
2. Opposition’s Motion: Indicates political dissatisfaction. Signals institutional strain.
3. Majoritarian Context: Removal unlikely without sufficient parliamentary majority. Demonstrates structural protection.
4. Rule of Law Principle: Ensures allegations are examined within a constitutional framework.
5. Public Confidence: Perceived politicisation reduces electoral credibility.

How Does the Doctrine of Basic Structure Protect the Election Commission?

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: Free and fair elections form part of the basic structure (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
2. Judicial Review: Courts can intervene if legislative action undermines electoral fairness.
3. Constitutional Morality: Requires institutions to operate beyond partisan interests.
4. Separation of Powers: Prevents concentration of electoral authority under executive control.

Conclusion

The constitutional architecture provides significant safeguards for the Election Commission’s independence. However, institutional credibility depends not only on legal protections but also on transparent processes, bipartisan trust, and adherence to constitutional morality. Ensuring free and fair elections remains foundational to India’s democratic order.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2018] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?

Linkage: It tests institutional accountability and public trust in elections, aligning with concerns over electoral roll revision and legitimacy.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now