The ECI’s constitutional mandate is under strain

1. At a Glance

• Core issue: Critics question whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) still acts independently, lawfully and impartially. The current trigger is how it has carried out the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in several States [1].
• The ECI is a constitutional body under Article 324. It consists of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and as many other Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President decides [2].
• Under Article 324, the ECI is responsible for preparing the electoral roll. The SIR is an exercise of this power [5].
• Why it matters: The topic links constitutional design (keeping elections free of executive control), the method of appointing election commissioners (the 2023 Act), and the right to vote through inclusion in the rolls. It is core material for GS-II.

2. Why in the News

• 5 Oct 2026: The Hindu (Chennai edition, page 10) carried an op-ed by P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha. He argues that the ECI faces "public opprobrium" never seen before [1].
• He says the SIR in various States shows "an utter disregard for the law" and "a disdain for procedural correctness and constitutional propriety" [1].
• He argues that the ECI's reputation for competence and impartiality was once global but is now "in the mud". He says its recent actions "smack of illegality, partisanship and worse" [1].
• The Supreme Court issued a judgment on 23 Sep 2026 (2026 INSC 1040). It appeared in the search results for this topic, but its subject could not be confirmed from the snippet. Check it before relying on it [6].

3. Background & Evolution

• Constituent Assembly: The Election Commission was debated as Draft Article 289. It became Article 324† [1].
• Members, including Drafting Committee Chairman Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, agreed unanimously that the ECI should be outside executive control [1].
• Ambedkar said: "So far as the fundamental question is concerned that the election machinery should be outside the control of the executive government there has been no dispute." [1]
• 1991: An Act governed the service conditions of the CEC and ECs. It did not set out an appointment procedure†. It was later replaced by the 2023 Act [3].
• 10 Aug 2023: The CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha [2].
• 2023 Act: This was the first law enacted specifically to govern the appointment of Election Commissioners [3].
• 2023 (Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India)†: The Supreme Court ruled that, until Parliament passed a law, appointments would be made by a committee of the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister [2]†.
• 22 Mar 2024: A Supreme Court judgment (2024 INSC 246) appeared in the results on this topic. It was reportedly the order declining to stay the 2023 Act†. The subject could not be confirmed from the snippet [7].

4. Core Static Facts

† = standard constitutional or legal position. It was not retrieved in this session's searches; verify it against the Bare Act or the Constitution.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Article 324 gives the ECI wide residual powers, including over electoral rolls [5]. The op-ed argues that the SIR was carried out with "disregard for the law" and procedural correctness [1].
• The Constituent Assembly's agreed principle was that election machinery must sit outside executive control [1]. The 2023 selection committee has an executive majority (PM plus a Cabinet Minister) [2]. This tests that principle.
• Disputes over the 2023 Act and over roll revisions keep coming before the Supreme Court [6][7].

Ethical / Governance

• Allegations of partisanship and of conduct that "smacks of illegality" damage institutional trust [1].
• Accountability gap: the ECI is not answerable to the executive by design [1]. That makes its transparency and adherence to procedure the main safeguards.

Social

• Intensive revision of rolls can lead to large-scale deletions. The poor, migrants and people without documents are at risk of being excluded, which bears on universal adult franchise (Art 326)†.
• The op-ed links the SIR to "constitutional propriety" because voting rights depend on being on the roll [1].

Historical / Comparative

• The ECI was once a global benchmark for "competence, impartiality and unwavering commitment to democratic norms" [1].
• Over time, appointments moved from executive discretion (until 2023), to a court-mandated committee, to a statutory committee with an executive majority [2][3]†.

Administrative

• Doing an SIR across several States at the same time strains booth-level machinery and documentation checks [1].
• Business-transaction rules for the ECI are now set by statute under the 2023 Act [4].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2025–26: The ECI carried out the SIR of electoral rolls in several States. It drew criticism for procedural lapses [1][5].
• 23 Sep 2026: Supreme Court judgment 2026 INSC 1040, linked to this topic in the search results. Its contents were not confirmed [6].
• 5 Oct 2026: Op-ed by P.D.T. Achary, "The ECI's constitutional mandate is under strain", calling the ECI's conduct a question of legality, accountability and constitutional propriety [1].
• Jan 2026: The New India Samachar (PIB) issue of 16–31 Jan 2026 surfaced for this topic. Its specific content was not verified [8].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The ECI is established under Article 324 of the Constitution [2].
• The ECI consists of the CEC and other ECs, whose number is fixed by the President [2].
• Preparing electoral rolls is the ECI's job under Article 324 [5].
• In the Constituent Assembly, the Election Commission was Draft Article 289 [1].
• B.R. Ambedkar said keeping election machinery outside executive control was undisputed [1].
• The 2023 Bill on CEC/EC appointments was introduced in the Rajya Sabha (not the Lok Sabha) on 10 Aug 2023 [2].
• The 2023 Act replaced the 1991 Act on ECs' service conditions [3].
• The 2023 Act is the first law specifically governing the appointment of ECs [3].
• Selection Committee: PM + Union Cabinet Minister + LoP/leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha. The CJI is not a member [2].
• The CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on the Selection Committee's recommendation [2].
• The 2023 Act also governs the procedure for transaction of business by the ECI [4].
• P.D.T. Achary is a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha [1].

8. Where the 2023 Act Leaves the Door Open to Government Influence

• The government side picks the shortlist and has the majority vote
• A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary (the country's senior-most civil servant, who reports to the government) prepares a list of five names [2].
• The Selection Committee that chooses from this list has three members. Two of them, the PM and a Cabinet Minister he nominates, come from the government [2].

• So the government shapes the shortlist and also controls the final vote. The Leader of Opposition can disagree but cannot block a choice.

• The committee can act even when a seat is empty

• The Act lets the Selection Committee's recommendation stand even if one of its seats is vacant [2].
• Suppose there is no recognised Leader of Opposition. Then only government members are left in the room.

• PRS says this may lead to a "monopoly of government members" in choosing the CEC and ECs [2].

• The government decides their pay

• The Act makes the pay of the CEC and ECs equal to the Cabinet Secretary's. The government fixes that pay [2].
• A Supreme Court judge's salary is different. It is fixed by an Act of Parliament, so the government cannot change it on its own [2].

• When the institution you oversee also controls your pay, you lose a layer of protection. This matters for the ECI, which has to judge the ruling party's conduct at election time.

• Only senior bureaucrats can be chosen

• The Act limits the posts to people who have held a rank equal to Secretary to the Government of India [2].
• But the CEC and ECs also do quasi-judicial work (deciding disputes, like a court), for example on party symbols. PRS notes that the rule shuts out other suitable people, such as judges or legal experts [2].
• A pool made up only of officers who spent their careers serving the government makes it harder for the public to see the ECI as separate from that government.

9. What the Law Commission Proposed and Parliament Did Not

• The Law Commission had already designed a more neutral panel
• The Law Commission's Report No. 255 on Electoral Reforms (2015) recommended a three-member committee to select ECs: the PM, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India [2][9].

• The Supreme Court's Anoop Baranwal judgment (2023) used the same three-member design as a temporary rule [2].

• Parliament changed one member, and that tipped the balance

• The 2023 Act kept the PM and the LoP but put a Union Cabinet Minister in place of the CJI [2].
• With the CJI on the panel, no single side had a majority. With a Minister, the government has two votes out of three.

• So the change is not a small detail. It turns a balanced panel into one the government controls, and that is the exact point the Constituent Assembly wanted to avoid [1].

• Exam use: this comparison is the strongest evidence for Mains question stem 1 in Section 8. It shows a cheaper and more neutral option was already on the table and was not chosen.

10. Why a Roll Revision Turns Into a Question of Trust

• Being on the roll is the gateway to the right to vote
• A citizen whose name is missing from the electoral roll cannot vote, even if they are fully eligible under Article 326 (the right of every adult citizen aged 18 or over to vote)†.

• So any revision that removes names directly decides who can vote. It is not just paperwork [1].

• Courts usually step in only after the election

• Article 329 (which limits court interference in elections) means courts generally avoid stopping an election process once it is under way†.
• So if names are wrongly deleted just before polling, the voter may get a remedy only after the result, when the harm is already done.

• That is why the op-ed puts so much weight on "procedural correctness" [1]. When courts come late, following fair procedure is the voter's main real protection.

• The way the members are appointed affects how a revision is judged

• If the CEC and ECs are seen as chosen by the government (see the section above), every deletion in a State ruled by an opposition party will look political, whether or not it is.

• This is how the two halves of the debate connect: the appointment design (2023 Act) affects whether people trust the SIR's results.

• Caution for your answers: the note has no verified figures on how many names were deleted, or on what the Supreme Court decided in 2026 INSC 1040 [6]. Do not quote numbers until you have checked them.

11. The Case for the ECI — and Where That Defence Falls Short

• The strongest defence of the ECI
• Under Article 324, preparing the roll is the ECI's own constitutional duty [5]. A roll with dead voters, duplicate entries or people who have moved away also harms free and fair elections. So cleaning the roll is not wrong in itself.
• The 2023 Act did not overrule the Supreme Court. The Anoop Baranwal arrangement was meant to apply only until Parliament made a law, and Parliament then made one [2].

• The main charge against the SIR comes from one op-ed (a signed opinion article) [1]. Strong words like "in the mud" are one expert's opinion, not the finding of a court or committee.

• What this defence gets right

• The ECI does have the power to revise the roll, and doing it is a duty, not overreach.

• Parliament acted within its powers. The question is whether the law is wise, not whether Parliament was allowed to pass it.

• Where it falls short

• The critics do not dispute the power. They object to how it was used: the procedure and the fairness [1]. Having a power does not answer a complaint about the method.
• "Parliament filled the gap" is true. But it filled it with a design that the Law Commission and the Court had both avoided [2][9]. Passing a law legally does not, by itself, protect the ECI from the executive.
• The opinion is from a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha [1], someone with deep knowledge of procedure. In your answer, quote it as an opinion, but take it seriously.

12. What Should Change, and Who Must Act

• Parliament should restore a neutral member to the Selection Committee
• Put the CJI, or another member who is not from the government, back in the Minister's seat. This is the Law Commission's 2015 design [9].

• Then no single side would have a majority, and the Constituent Assembly's principle of keeping elections outside executive control would be met again [1].

• Parliament should fix CEC and EC pay by law, as it does for judges

• Take pay out of the government's hands, the way Supreme Court judges' pay is fixed through an Act of Parliament [2].

• Parliament should stop the committee from acting with an empty seat

• Require all seats to be filled, or the leader of the largest opposition party to be present, before a recommendation is valid. This closes the "government only" route PRS points out [2].

• Parliament should widen the pool of candidates

• Allow people from the judiciary and legal experts to be appointed, not only Secretary-level officers. Their quasi-judicial work needs this range of experience [2].

• The ECI should show its work during any SIR

• The ECI should publish the procedure it follows and the reason for each deletion, before polling. Then wrong deletions can be fixed before the vote, not after.
• Following procedure in the open is the ECI's best answer to the charge of disregarding "procedural correctness" [1].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Report/Committee: Law Commission of India, Report No. 255 on Electoral Reforms (2015): selection panel of PM + LoP + CJI [9]; PRS Legislative Brief on the CEC Bill, 2023, which flags the vacancy clause, the salary link and the bureaucrats-only pool [2]
• Law/Case: Article 324 (ECI's powers, including the roll) [5]; CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 [3]; Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): interim panel of PM + LoP + CJI†
• Comparison: Supreme Court judges' salaries are fixed by an Act of Parliament, but CEC/EC pay is tied to the Cabinet Secretary's, which the government sets [2]
• Quote: Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly: election machinery "outside the control of the executive government" was undisputed [1]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Appointment to various constitutional posts, and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies. Also the Representation of People's Act and salient features of the Constitution.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance, institutional integrity and accountability.
• Possible question stems: 1. 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. (15 marks) 2. Revision of electoral rolls lies at the intersection of administrative efficiency and the right to vote. Critically analyse the recent Special Intensive Revision exercise in this light. (15 marks) 3. Public trust is the real capital of constitutional bodies. Discuss with reference to the Election Commission of India. (10 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): The Supreme Court-mandated selection panel that the 2023 Act replaced.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950: The statutory basis for preparing and revising electoral rolls, including special revision†.
• Articles 325–329: Universal franchise, one general roll, and the bar on courts in electoral matters.
• Model Code of Conduct: Another area where the ECI's neutrality is judged.
• Electoral reforms (Law Commission reports, One Nation One Election): Proposals that change the ECI's workload and powers.
• Other constitutional bodies' appointments (CAG, UPSC): Comparing how independence is protected.
• Delimitation: Another electoral process currently in the news that affects representation.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Election Commission of India (Polity): The institution at the centre of the note: its Article 324 powers and independence are what critics question.
• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): The ECI exercise that triggered the criticism; know what it involves and why exclusion is debated.
• Electoral roll (Polity): SIR revises these voter lists, and being on the roll decides whether a citizen can vote.
• Election Commissioners (Polity): Explains how ECs are appointed and removed, which is central to the independence debate and the 2023 Act.
• Universal adult franchise (Polity): Mass deletions from rolls threaten this principle of every adult citizen voting, under Article 326.
• Executive (Polity): The Constituent Assembly wanted election machinery outside executive control; the 2023 panel's executive majority tests this.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• CJI in the selection panel: The CJI was part of the Supreme Court's interim (2023 judgment) arrangement, not the 2023 Act. The Act uses a Union Cabinet Minister instead [2].
• House of introduction: The 2023 Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha [2].
• Draft Article number: It was Draft Article 289. Do not confuse it with today's Article 324 [1].
• Number of ECs: The Constitution does not fix the number. The President decides it [2].
• Removal: Only the CEC has protection like a Supreme Court judge's. ECs are removed on the CEC's recommendation†.