Discuss the significance of *Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India* (2023) and evaluate Parliament's legislative response to it.

Under Article 324(2), the President appoints the CEC and ECs "subject to any law made by Parliament." Yet for over seven decades no such law existed, and the executive made these appointments alone [4]. In Anoop Baranwal (March 2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench filled this gap [4]. Parliament's reply, the 2023 Act, turned the process into law but weakened what the Court intended.

Significance of the judgment

• Ended the executive's monopoly: appointments "should not be done solely by the Executive" [1].
• Interim Selection Committee: the PM, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha and the CJI, until Parliament passed a law [3].
• Affirmed independence: the ECI "stands on a higher pedestal" and must be kept away from executive control [3].
• Dialogue with Parliament: the Court declined to order equal removal protection for ECs, calling it "a matter for Parliament to consider." It backed an independent ECI secretariat, as the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) had recommended [3].

Evaluating Parliament's response: the 2023 Act

Positives

• Fulfils Art. 324(2): the first law on appointments. It was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 10 August 2023, passed in December 2023, and repealed the 1991 Act [1].
• Structured process: a Search Committee prepares a shortlist and a Selection Committee chooses. Tenure is fixed at 6 years or age 65, with no reappointment [2].
• CEC's removal protection kept, on par with a Supreme Court judge [2].

Concerns

• CJI replaced by a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, giving the government 2 of 3 votes. This goes against the judgment's spirit [1][3].
• Gap when there is no LoP: after Lok Sabha is dissolved, the panel may have only ruling-side members, just when general elections are held [3].
• Narrow pool of candidates: only serving or former Secretaries can be chosen, though the ECI does quasi-judicial work such as deciding symbol disputes [3].
• Unequal removal protection kept: an EC can be removed on the CEC's recommendation alone [2]. Recent reports that two ECs recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months show why dissent needs protection [4].
• No independent secretariat, so the ECI still depends on the government for staff and budget [3].

On balance, Parliament used its legitimate Art. 324(2) power but respected Baranwal's form more than its substance. The Act could be strengthened with a neutral panel member, a named substitute when there is no LoP, equal removal protection for ECs and an independent secretariat. These changes would make the ECI a truly autonomous guardian of free and fair elections, a basic feature of the Constitution.