Independence of the Election Commission: Constitutional Safeguards and Contemporary Concerns

Why in the News?

The independence of the Election Commission has come under debate following allegations of irregularities in electoral roll revisions and a proposed motion to remove the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

Concerns have been raised regarding large-scale deletions of voter names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and the broader implications for institutional autonomy.

Background and Context

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is one of the most critical constitutional institutions safeguarding India’s democratic framework. Any controversy relating to electoral roll revisions, appointment procedures, or removal of commissioners directly impacts public trust in the integrity of elections.

The present debate also follows the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Office and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, and judicial scrutiny over its validity.

Importance of Free and Fair Elections

Free and fair elections form part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain.

Constitutional Basis

• Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise to every citizen above 18 years, subject to reasonable restrictions.
• The right to vote, though statutory, is integral to democratic participation.

Recent allegations of “vote theft” and mass deletions of names during SIR exercises in certain States have raised concerns about procedural fairness and electoral integrity.

Any perceived dilution of electoral processes affects the legitimacy of democratic institutions.

Constitutional Status of the Election Commission

Article 324

Article 324 vests in the Election Commission of India the powers of superintendence, direction, and control over elections to:

• Parliament
• State Legislatures
• President
• Vice-President

This ensures:

• Institutional permanence
• Autonomy from routine executive interference
• Wide discretionary powers in conducting elections

Since 1993, the Commission has functioned as a multi-member body, a structure upheld in T. N. Seshan vs. Union of India.

The CEC acts as Chairperson, and decisions are taken collectively.

Appointment of Election Commissioners

The appointment process became contentious after the 2023 Act.

Key Provisions of the 2023 Act

• The President appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners.
• A Selection Committee comprising:
  • Prime Minister
  • A Union Minister
  • Leader of the Opposition

Critics argue that the exclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the Selection Committee weakens institutional independence.

This issue arose after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, which had temporarily mandated inclusion of the CJI in the selection panel until Parliament enacted a law.

The validity of the 2023 Act is currently under judicial review.

Safeguards for Independence

Removal of the CEC

Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4).

Grounds:

• Proved misbehaviour
• Incapacity

Procedure:

1. Motion signed by:
   1. At least 100 Lok Sabha members, or
   2. 50 Rajya Sabha members
2. Admission by Speaker/Chairman
3. Constitution of a three-member inquiry committee:
   1. A Supreme Court judge
   2. Chief Justice of a High Court
   3. A distinguished jurist
4. Opportunity of defence to the CEC
5. Passage by special majority in both Houses

This makes removal extremely difficult, reinforcing autonomy.

Removal of Other Election Commissioners

Other Election Commissioners may be removed by the President on the recommendation of the CEC.

However, in Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that such advice must not be arbitrary, thereby preventing misuse of executive discretion.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and Electoral Concerns

Recent controversies include:

• Large-scale deletion of names from voter rolls
• Alleged targeting of specific demographic groups
• Compressed timelines in revision exercises

Since electoral rolls form the foundation of democratic participation, any irregularities risk undermining constitutional guarantees under Article 326.

Challenges to revision exercises have reached the Supreme Court, highlighting the tension between administrative efficiency and democratic legitimacy.

Key Concerns

1. Appointment Process: Perceived executive dominance in the selection committee.
2. Electoral Roll Transparency: Need for greater procedural safeguards.
3. Public Trust Deficit: Political allegations may erode institutional credibility.
4. Judicial Review Pending: Legal uncertainty regarding the 2023 Act.

Way Forward

• Ensuring transparent and participatory electoral roll revisions.
• Strengthening data audit mechanisms and grievance redressal systems.
• Clarifying constitutional principles governing appointments through judicial interpretation.
• Institutional reforms that balance independence with accountability.