The framers of the Constitution intended the election machinery to be outside the control of the executive. Examine whether the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 is consistent with this intent.

On 15 June 1949, during the debate on Draft Article 289, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that the whole election machinery should rest with a central Election Commission and not with the government of the day [1]. The CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 is the first law on how Election Commissioners are appointed. It respects this intent in form but weakens it in substance.

Where the Act matches the framers' intent

• Fills a constitutional gap: Article 324(2) left appointments to a law made by Parliament. Until that law came, the executive decided alone. The Act sets up a collegial Selection Committee that includes the Leader of Opposition [2].
• Security of tenure: Members serve six years or until age 65, with no re-appointment. The CEC can be removed only in the same way as a Supreme Court judge [3].
• Statutory clarity: The Act repeals the 1991 Act and sets a written procedure, with a Search Committee that shortlists names [3].

Where it departs from that intent

• Executive majority: The panel has the PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the LoP. The Act dropped the CJI, who sat on the interim panel ordered in Anoop Baranwal (2023), so the government holds two of three votes [2].
• Government-run shortlist: The Search Committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary [2].
• Vacancy clause: A recommendation stays valid even if a seat is empty. With no LoP in place, only ruling-party members could choose [2].
• Pay set by the executive: Salaries are tied to the Cabinet Secretary's, which the government fixes. Earlier they matched a Supreme Court judge's, which Parliament fixes by law [2].
• Narrow pool: Only Secretary-rank officers are eligible. This leaves out jurists, even though the ECI does quasi-judicial work [2].

Law Commission (2015) / Anoop Baranwal:  PM + LoP + CJI           → no side has a majority
CEC & ECs Act, 2023:                     PM + Cabinet Minister + LoP → Government 2 : 1

Fig.: One change of member shifts the balance of the selection panel

In short, the Act puts the appointment process into law but does not secure the independence the framers wanted. Parliament could bring it in line with the spirit of Article 324 by:

• restoring a neutral member to the panel, as Law Commission Report No. 255 recommended [4];
• fixing pay by statute;
• requiring a full panel before any recommendation is valid.

Free and fair elections, part of the Constitution's basic structure, depend on an umpire that is trusted by all sides.