Case Brief: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

INTRODUCTION

The Election Commission is a permanent, independent organization that was formed by the Indian Constitution to guarantee free and fair elections throughout the nation. The commission is in charge of organizing India’s Lok Sabha elections. The Election Commission of India is vested by the Constitution with the authority to oversee, direct, and manage elections for the Indian parliament, state legislatures, the office of the president of India, and the office of vice-president of India. The Central government and the State governments of India share the Election Commission as a single entity. It should be mentioned that the commission is not involved in the state’s municipal and panchayat elections. Therefore, the Indian Constitution provides for a distinct State Election Commission.

The following guidelines for the composition of the electoral commission are outlined in Article 324 of the Constitution:

• The Chief Election Commissioner and all election commissioners are appointed by the President.
• The CEC serves as the Chairman of the Election Commission in the event that another EC is chosen in this capacity. 
• If required, the President may designate regional commissioners to support the Commission following consultation with the Election Commission. 
• The President of the nation will decide each commissioner’s term in office and terms of service.

FACTS 

The court was asked to examine the true significance of Article 324, specifically Article 324(2), which calls for the appointment of Election Commissioners, in response to four writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The following is the said sub-section:

“324(2)-The President may, from time to time, fix the number of additional Election Commissioners, if any, to form the Election Commission. The President shall appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament.”

In a public interest lawsuit, Anoop Baranwal asked for a mandamus order, directing the Respondent to enact legislation to guarantee a just, equitable, and open procedure of choosing members of the Election Commission by forming an impartial, independent collegium or selection committee to provide recommendations for names. The President will appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners; however, this will be subject to parliamentary law. Without such a statute, the President has been appointing people based on the Prime Minister’s recommendations. On January 23, 2018, the Supreme Court assigned the case to a Constitution Bench in order to render a binding decision.

ISSUES

1. Does the current nomination process go against the Constitution’s promise of equality?
2. Does the issuance of directives or recommendations by the court regarding the nomination procedure of election commissioners contradict the concept of separation of powers?

ARGUMENTS 

It is noted that the legislative void is giving rise to ad hocism. Since 1951, no appointments have been made for Regional Commissioners. In a contemporary election process, the Election Commission’s role is such that manipulating the election schedule is sufficient to abuse it. Judicial intervention may be used to complete the instrument of instructions that was sought even after the enactment of the original Article’s revisions. The only people who can be appointed are bureaucrats, primarily IAS officers. The IAS Officers collaborate closely with their political overlords. Appointment must come from a more broad-based pool of talent like Judicial Members. There ought to be enough personnel in the Secretariat. 

In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 569 of 2021, the intervenor’s skilled counsel would argue that the predicted void must be acknowledged as a democratic space that the Constitution’s founding fathers left available for the future Parliament to fill. It is argued that because the Constituent Assembly was not a truly elected body, many decisions were left to Parliament, which has a stronger claim to democratic legitimacy. Drawing on the cases of the Judges, he would argue that a parallel might be made. It is a conspicuous example of legislative inertia. Judicial action is important because it vitiates citizens’ Fundamental Rights when free and fair elections are denied. Now included in the Fundamental Rights is the right to vote. The argument goes that the right to vote is, in fact, protected by the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

The extraordinary powers and the obligation of periodically holding elections for both the Parliament and state legislatures have been bestowed upon the Election Commission of India. This is a big job. According to Article 324, it has plenary authority. The only laws that apply to it are those that the State Legislature or Parliament may make.

The Election Commission surely has an obligation to operate impartially and lawfully. In addition to following the Court’s orders, it must respect the requirements of the Constitution. Performing the same allows it to tap into an almost limitless supply of electricity.  

Once the poll is notified, [which again is a call to be taken by the Election Commission itself, and is capable of being exploited and the subject of much controversy, if prejudice or subservience to the forces that be, is betrayed], it assumes unusual powers.

Its authority extends to all national governments, regardless of location. The Commission assumes superintendence over Government officers who fall under its purview. The Election Commission is entrusted with a tremendous deal of power over the candidates and political parties, and consequently, over democracy. Several unlawful, unjust, and dishonest choices made by the Election Commission could be upheld for the day if the poll results are awaited in order to challenge the election before the tribunal. Following the announcement of the election results, the situation is essentially over. As a matter of fact, the conduct of a free and fair poll can frequently be destroyed by an omission or a delay in making a choice. Elections that are conducted in an unlawful, dishonest, or unfair manner may not always be resolved by the remedies promised in election petitions independently. 

It goes without saying that the laws and the Constitution must be followed in order for the government to function. It is not unusual for political parties to release manifestos that include a list of commitments they plan to fulfill. Men formed into political parties are unable to accomplish their objectives without gaining power. 

Thus, power turns into a tool to achieve a goal. The only possible objective is to govern in a way that upholds the fundamental rights and the legislative mandate, all while achieving the high goals outlined in the guiding principles. A legitimate government is what is being considered. True democracy is characterized by the following two crucial elements: the radical and simultaneous transformation of the ruler from a “Emperor” to a public servant, and the “ruled” into a citizenry with rights, including the freedom to exercise Fundamental Rights as outlined in the Indian Constitution.  

In the same way, an Election Commission’s indisputable devotion to the equality promise in Article 14 depends on possessing the sterling attributes we have outlined. A telling and chilling effect is felt on the fortunes of the political parties if the Election Commission uses its broad powers in an unfair or illegal manner, or if he abstains from using them when it becomes necessary. Undoubtedly, unfair treatment of political parties that are in comparable circumstances is a violation of Article 14’s mission. Political parties need to be seen as institutions that speak for the dreams and ambitions of their citizen constituents. The majority of voters are often members or supporters of one or more political parties.

ANALYSIS

Without a doubt, the difficult and admirable duty of avoiding any kind of intervention or subordination from the Executive would fall to the Election Commission of India. One method the Executive can bring an otherwise autonomous body to its knees is by depriving it of the necessary funding and resources to enable it to operate effectively and independently. It would not be surprising if, in the event that it was not provided with sufficient funding and facilities, a weaker Commission gave in to pressure from the Executive; this would lead to a subtle but real takeover of an otherwise resilient and autonomous Commission. 

This is in addition to the fact that denying it desperately needed funding and resources will hinder its ability to operate efficiently. This decision is nothing less than historical since it was made by combining these three factors to produce a verdict that differed from the widely accepted appointment process that has been followed for many years. Since opposing viewpoints have been expressed, it is impossible to determine the exact impact of the decision. While some believe the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case goes against the separation of powers concept, others acknowledge how crucial this ruling is to maintaining the ECI’s independence.