Does the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 strengthen or dilute the independence of the Election Commission? Discuss.

Article 324(2) left the appointment of the CEC and ECs to a law made by Parliament. No such law existed until the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 (Act 49 of 2023) [3], which replaced the 1991 Act [2]. The Act brings in a formal procedure for appointments. However, the way it structures selection weakens the Commission's independence more than the procedure strengthens it.

How the Act strengthens independence

• Gives appointments a legal basis: Appointments now follow a law instead of executive discretion alone. This meets the Constitution's requirement of "law made by Parliament" [2].
• Brings in the Opposition: The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha now sits on the Selection Committee [1].
• Adds a vetting stage: A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary shortlists five names [1].
• Keeps the CEC's security of tenure: The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge [1].

How the Act dilutes independence

• The executive has a built-in majority: The committee is the PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the LoP, so the government can always outvote the Opposition 2:1 [1].
• It departs from expert advice: The Goswami Committee (1990), the Law Commission (2015) and Anoop Baranwal (2023) all favoured including the CJI. The Act puts a Cabinet Minister in the CJI's place [1].
• The Search Committee is not binding: The Selection Committee can choose someone outside the shortlist [1].
• The pool of candidates is narrow: Only serving or former Secretary-rank officers are eligible. This leaves out judges and other experts, even though the Commission does quasi-judicial work [1].
• ECs have weaker protection than the CEC: An EC can be removed on the CEC's recommendation, so the CEC and ECs do not enjoy equal security [1].

Selection Committee (2023 Act):  PM + Cabinet Minister  vs  LoP  →  2 : 1
Anoop Baranwal (interim):        PM + LoP + CJI                  →  no built-in majority

The executive now holds the deciding vote.

Assessment The Act gives appointments a legal procedure, but it does not make them any less dependent on the executive. This matters most when the Commission's decisions are disputed, as with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The Act formalises the appointment process but leaves the government in control of it. To bring it back in line with Article 324, Parliament should add a neutral member such as the CJI, as the Goswami Committee proposed. It should also widen eligibility beyond civil servants and give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC. In a free and fair election, the umpire must be seen to be neutral as well as be neutral.