 |
|
Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra has filed a plea in the Supreme Court, lending her support to existing petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. This Act, passed in December 2023, significantly altered the composition of the selection panel responsible for appointing Election Commissioners (ECs), removing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the process. Moitra's contention centers around the alleged constitutional infirmities within the Act, arguing that it undermines the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission, a critical institution for ensuring free and fair elections. She asserts that the new law allows the executive branch to exert undue influence over the composition of the EC, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the electoral process. The core of her argument rests on the assertion that the Act contradicts the spirit of Article 324(2) of the Indian Constitution, which, while allowing Parliament to legislate on the appointment of ECs, intended this power to be exercised as a safeguard against executive overreach, not as a means to enable it.
A key point of Moitra's argument focuses on Section 7 of the Act. This section establishes a selection committee dominated by executive members, granting the government significant power in selecting the CEC and other ECs. Moitra argues that this structure directly contravenes the established principle of an independent, non-partisan EC, crucial for maintaining the trust and confidence of the electorate. The selection process, she claims, has now become susceptible to political maneuvering and the potential for biased appointments, thereby undermining the very foundation of fair elections. The MP further highlights the lack of substantive parliamentary oversight during the passage of the Bill. She points to the suspension of numerous opposition MPs during the winter session of 2023, preventing them from participating in the debate and voting on the crucial legislation. This, she argues, renders the claimed 'Parliamentary supervision' a mere facade, failing to represent the will of a significant portion of the elected representatives.
The MP also cites a decline in public trust in the Election Commission as further evidence supporting her case. Referencing a CSDS-Lokniti survey, she notes a significant drop in public confidence in the EC between 2019 and 2024. This decline, Moitra argues, is a direct consequence of the perceived erosion of the EC's independence, stemming from the changes introduced by the new Act. The decreased public trust, she argues, is a serious indicator of the potential harm caused by the Act and underscores the need for urgent judicial intervention to restore confidence in the fairness of India's electoral system. In her plea, Moitra proposes alternative models for the selection of CEC/ECs that prioritize independence and transparency. These include reinstating the CJI to the selection panel, a model previously suggested by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, or alternatively, a panel consisting only of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, ensuring a consensus-based approach. She also suggests that the names recommended by any selection panel should require a 2/3rd majority approval in Parliament to safeguard against potential executive influence and ensure wider legislative support for the appointments.
The case is a significant development in the ongoing legal challenges to the Election Commissioners’ Act. The Supreme Court has already heard preliminary arguments on the matter, including a refusal to stay the Act's implementation in March 2024. The ongoing litigation highlights a fundamental debate about the balance of power between the executive and independent institutions in India's democratic system. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the future of elections in India, influencing public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the electoral process. The arguments raised by Moitra underscore broader concerns about the potential for executive overreach and the need for robust mechanisms to safeguard the independence of vital institutions. The case is being closely watched not only by legal experts but also by political analysts and civil society organizations deeply interested in the health of India's democratic processes. The Supreme Court's decision will set a precedent affecting not only the composition of the Election Commission but also the broader issue of maintaining the integrity and independence of crucial government bodies responsible for the implementation of fundamental constitutional rights.
The background to this case includes previous legal challenges, filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, the Association for Democratic Reforms, and others, questioning the constitutionality of the Election Commissioners’ Act. These petitions highlight a growing concern about the potential impact of the changes on the integrity of the election process. The Supreme Court’s decision in March 2023, which temporarily directed the appointment of ECs through a panel including the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and CJI, provided a crucial context for the subsequent legislative action by the Parliament, leading to the Act now under challenge. The enactment of the Act sparked a wave of litigation, demonstrating the significant stakes involved in the issue of maintaining the independence of the Election Commission. Moitra’s intervention strengthens the legal challenge, adding a prominent voice to the concerns raised by other petitioners, potentially influencing the Court's deliberations and final judgment on the matter.