‘Tyranny of elected’: SC questions political control over EC appointments
New Delhi, May 7: The Supreme Court on Thursday made strong observations on political parties changing their stand on the appointment process…
New Delhi, May 7: The Supreme Court on Thursday made strong observations on political parties changing their stand on the appointment process of Election Commissioners after coming to power, while hearing petitions challenging the 2023 law governing appointments to the Election Commission of India.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice P.K. Sharma questioned why successive governments failed to establish an independent mechanism for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
‘Whoever comes to power is doing the same thing’
During the hearing, Justice Datta remarked that concerns over concentration of power were no longer limited to the “tyranny of the unelected”.
“This should be equated with tyranny of the elected,” Justice Datta observed.
Justice Sharma added: “Tyranny of the majority.”
Justice Datta further remarked: “Whoever comes to power is doing the same thing. It is unfortunate for the country.”
The court also referred to concerns expressed by Dr B.R. Ambedkar regarding the functioning of democracy in India.
ALSO READ: SC directs Jharkhand to fill 50% teacher posts through para-teacher recruitment
ADR challenges 2023 law
Appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that every ruling party had taken advantage of executive control over appointments to the Election Commission.
“When people were in opposition, they clamoured for an independent body. But once they came to power, they stopped bothering about it,” Bhushan submitted.
He referred to earlier criticism by senior BJP leader L.K. Advani on the concentration of appointment powers with the executive when the BJP was in opposition.
The petitions challenge the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Petitioners oppose removal of CJI from panel
The bench questioned why Parliament had not enacted a law on the appointment process before the Supreme Court’s 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment.
In that verdict, the apex court had temporarily directed that appointments be made by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Under the new law, the CJI has been removed from the selection committee, a move challenged by petitioners as undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
Bhushan argued that free and fair elections require an independent appointment process for Election Commissioners and said the new legislation restores defects already identified by the Supreme Court in earlier rulings.
“This court took great pains to set things right,” he submitted.
The petitioners, including ADR and activist Jaya Thakur, argued that the 2023 law gives the political executive dominant control over appointments to the Election Commission.
