Critically evaluate whether the 2023 law on appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner adequately safeguards the independence of the Election Commission of India.

Article 324(2) left the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) to a law of Parliament. For seven decades no such law existed. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) filled this gap with an interim panel of the PM, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and the CJI [3]. Parliament then enacted the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 [1]. The Act protects members once they are in office, but it leaves the choice of who gets in largely to the executive.

Safeguards the Act provides

• A legal process replaces pure discretion: earlier, the President appointed on the Union government's advice alone. Now a Search Committee and a Selection Committee are required by law [1].
• Opposition voice: the LoP sits on the selection panel. Gyanesh Kumar was chosen by a panel of the PM, the Home Minister and the LoP [4].
• Security of tenure: the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, through a motion passed by both Houses [2].

Gaps that weaken independence

• Built-in executive majority: the panel is the PM plus a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, so the LoP can always be outvoted 2–1 [2].
• CJI dropped: the Act removes the neutral member that Anoop Baranwal had added [3].
• Executive-led shortlisting: the Search Committee is headed by the Law Minister [1]. The Selection Committee may also pick names outside the panel [2], which can make the shortlist a formality.
• Unequal protection: ECs can still be removed on the CEC's recommendation alone, so they remain exposed.
• Trust deficit: the Act's validity is still unsettled. In September 2026 a split Supreme Court bench placed the matter before the CJI to consider a Constitution Bench [6]. Lawyers have even protested outside the Supreme Court demanding the CEC's resignation [7].

Verdict: The Act partly safeguards independence. It protects members after appointment, but its selection process is neither neutral nor seen to be neutral.

Way forward

• Add a neutral member to the panel (the CJI or a nominee), as the Law Commission's 255th Report recommended [5].
• Give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC.
• Publish the shortlisting criteria and limit selection to the search panel.

Protection in office means little if the way members are chosen is open to doubt. Making selection neutral at the start would protect the Commission's credibility without making removal easier. That would uphold free and fair elections, which the Supreme Court treats as part of the Constitution's basic structure.