Critically examine whether the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 adequately secures the independence of the Election Commission in light of *Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India*.

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), a Constitution Bench said that, until Parliament made a law, the CEC and ECs should be appointed on the advice of a panel of the PM, LoP and CJI [2]. The 2023 Act filled that gap, but it replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM [2]. The Act therefore gives appointments a legal footing more than it secures the Commission's independence.

Where the Act strengthens independence

• Codified procedure: A statutory Search Committee now shortlists five names [2], replacing an opaque, purely executive practice.
• Opposition voice: The LoP now sits on the Selection Committee [2].
• Collegial check: ECs remain equal to the CEC, as held in T.N. Seshan (1995) [2]. In 2026, two ECs appointed under the Act wrote formal dissent notes on the nationwide SIR [1], so appointees are not automatically pliant.

Where it falls short

• 2:1 executive majority: The PM and the nominated Minister can always outvote the LoP. The neutral member the Court had included is gone [2].
• Vacancy clause: Decisions stay valid despite a vacancy. When the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the panel can consist of ruling-party members alone, just before a general election [2].
• Non-binding shortlist: The Selection Committee may choose someone outside the five names [2].
• Narrow eligibility: Only Secretary-rank officers qualify, even though the EC performs quasi-judicial functions such as settling symbol disputes [2].
• Unequal removal: Under Art. 324(5), an EC can be removed on the CEC's recommendation. Baranwal left parity of protection to Parliament, and the Act does not address it [2]. Dissenting ECs therefore vote against the person who can recommend their removal [1].
• No independent secretariat: The EC still depends on the government for staff and administration. In 2026, one dissent note went to the Cabinet Secretary [1][2].
• Trust deficit: The Opposition objected to both the 2024 and 2025 appointments [1]. A Commission seen as partisan weakens trust even in sound safeguards, such as the SIR rule of no deletion from the roll without a hearing and a written order [3].

The Act meets the letter of Baranwal, since Parliament has now made a law. It does not meet the judgment's spirit of keeping the referee apart from the players. Parliament should add a neutral member to the panel, such as the CJI as the Law Commission (2015) proposed. It should also amend Art. 324(5) to give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC and set up an independent secretariat, as the Goswami Committee (1990) urged [2]. These steps would make free and fair elections, part of the Constitution's basic structure, secure in practice as well as in law.