Examine the constitutional issues in the 2023 law on CEC/EC appointments.

Article 324(2) provides that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President, "subject to any law made by Parliament". The 2023 Act finally supplies that law [2] — but its design raises fresh questions of institutional independence rather than settling them.

Filling a constitutional vacuum

• The provision always contemplated a parliamentary law; until 2023 appointments rested wholly on executive discretion. The Act repeals the 1991 Act and creates the first statutory process [2].
• A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary shortlists five names; a Selection Committee recommends to the President [2].

Independence of the Election Commission

• The Selection Committee comprises the PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha — an in-built executive majority of two to one, which may undermine the ECI's independence [2].
• In March 2023 the Supreme Court held that these appointments must not be made solely by the Executive and placed the CJI on the interim panel; the Act removes the judicial member [2].
• The Selection Committee may also look beyond the Search Committee's panel, diluting the shortlisting safeguard [2].

Separation of powers and judicial review

• Parliament's competence under Art. 324(2) is textually clear, yet the law's validity has divided the Court — the 2026 split verdict on the Act leaves the issue open for a larger Bench [4].
• In his separate opinion, Justice Dipankar Datta called "Judges appoint Judges" a myth, noting that the Executive already participates throughout and faulting its "piecemeal approvals" of Collegium names [4].

The larger appointments debate

• The 99th Amendment and NJAC were struck down for failing to secure judicial primacy, violating the basic structure [1] — establishing that in appointments, composition determines independence.

The Act corrects a long-standing constitutional omission, and legislative primacy under Art. 324(2) is legitimate. Its credibility, however, depends on a plural, reasoned and time-bound process — a neutral member on the panel and recorded reasons would align the statute with the Court's concern and secure the free and fair elections that Article 324 exists to guarantee.