Evaluate the 2023 law on the appointment and service conditions of the CEC and ECs against the constitutional goal of an independent Election Commission.

Article 324 places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the Election Commission, but it left the appointment process to Parliament. In Anoop Baranwal (2023), the Supreme Court set up an interim selection panel that included the CJI. Parliament then passed the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act No. 49 of 2023) [1]. The Act fills a long-standing gap in the law, but it secures the Commission's independence only in part.

Strengths: steps towards independence

• Statutory process: Appointment no longer rests on executive choice alone. The President now appoints on a Selection Committee's recommendation [2].
• Opposition voice: The Leader of Opposition, or the leader of the largest opposition party, sits on the panel [2].
• Structured shortlisting: A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary proposes five names [2].
• Security of tenure: The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge [2]. The ECI relied on this in 2026 to oppose a bid to restrain the CEC [3].
• Pay parity: The Bill had tied salary to the Cabinet Secretary's. The enacted Act restored parity with an SC judge [1][2].

Weaknesses: gaps against the constitutional goal

• Executive majority: The panel has the PM, a minister the PM nominates, and the LoP, so the government side outvotes the Opposition 2:1. This sits poorly with the Court's warning that the Commission must not be chosen by the executive exclusively [2].
• Vacancy clause: Recommendations stay valid even if a seat is empty. When there is no LoP, the panel can consist only of ruling-party members [2].
• Narrow eligibility: Only officers of Secretary rank or equivalent are eligible, even though the ECI performs quasi-judicial functions [2].
• Unequal removal: ECs can be removed on the CEC's recommendation, which may discourage dissent inside a multi-member body [2].
• Administrative autonomy ignored: The Act creates no independent secretariat, which the Goswami Committee recommended [2].

Verdict: The Act is better than appointment by executive decision alone. However, its design still favours the government, so the Commission's appearance of neutrality remains fragile. That matters most when the ECI's own functioning is before the courts [3].

Overall, the 2023 law puts the appointment process into statute but does not fully protect the Commission from executive influence. Three reforms would help: a neutral third member on the panel, such as the CJI as in the Court's interim model; a constitutional amendment giving ECs the same removal protection as the CEC; and an independent secretariat. Together they would bring the law in line with Article 324's promise of free and fair elections, which is part of the Constitution's basic structure.