Examine the limits of judicial intervention in the functioning of constitutional authorities that have removal protection similar to judges.

The Constitution protects the Chief Election Commissioner (Art. 324(5)) and the CAG (Art. 148(1)) by allowing their removal only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge [2]. This shields them from the executive, but it also limits what courts can do. A pending plea to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar [1] tests where that limit lies.

Where intervention is legitimate

• Appointments: Anoop Baranwal (2023) held that appointments must not rest with the executive alone [3][4].
• Internal functioning: the Court has endorsed plurality in the ECI, first approved in T.N. Seshan (1995) [3]. The CEC is first among equals, not the Commission itself, and courts can enforce this.
• Validity of laws: the challenge to the 2023 Act has been referred to a Constitution Bench [6].

Limits of intervention

• No power to suspend: removal needs proved misbehaviour and a special majority in both Houses [2]. A judicial suspension would do indirectly what the Constitution forbids directly. It would also let losing parties use litigation to pressure the ECI.
• Electoral bar: Art. 329(b) allows elections to be challenged only through election petitions [2], so courts cannot stall the process midway.
• No rewriting of law: ordering unanimity would override the decision rule Parliament legislated. It would give every member a veto and could freeze time-bound decisions such as Model Code enforcement.
• Text binds the Court: Anoop Baranwal refused to give ECs removal protection equal to the CEC's, because that needs a constitutional amendment [4].
• Self-conflict: if the CJI sits on the selection panel, fellow judges may find it hard to review the appointment [5].

Way forward

• Judiciary: decide the rule, not the person. Settle the 2023 Act's validity [6] instead of acting against an incumbent.
• Parliament: end the government's 2–1 majority on the selection panel and bar it from functioning while the Leader of Opposition seat is vacant [4]. Extend CEC-like protection to the ECs.
• ECI: publish dissents so that majority decisions are visible.

Judicial review keeps protected authorities within constitutional limits, and removal protection keeps them independent, including from the courts. The Court should correct processes through structural rulings and leave removal to Parliament. That would protect free and fair elections as part of the basic structure [6] and respect the separation of powers.