The Supreme Court’s recent adjournment of petitions challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioner (EC) under the 2023 Act has reignited concerns over the fairness and transparency of India’s electoral system. A bench comprising Justices Suryakant and N Kotishwar Singh deferred the matter beyond the Holi vacation, but no fixed date for the hearing has been announced. Meanwhile, the government moved swiftly, appointing Gyanesh Kumar as the next CEC on February 17, two days before the court was set to hear challenges to the selection process. This move has sparked strong opposition, particularly from Rahul Gandhi, who has voiced concerns about the independence of the Election Commission.
Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment has drawn attention not just because of its timing but also due to his political and bureaucratic background. As a key figure in the Home Ministry, he played an instrumental role in executing the government’s decision to abrogate certain provisions of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. He was also a member of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Construction Committee and represented the government in the ‘Shri Ram Mandir Tirth Kshetra Trust’, playing a role in the selection of the idol of Ram Lalla. His deep ties to politically significant projects have raised concerns about whether he can maintain the neutrality expected of a CEC.
Adding to the controversy, the central government’s decision to exclude the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection committee for appointing Election Commissioners has been a significant point of contention. Critics argue that removing the judiciary from the selection process undermines the impartiality of the Election Commission, allowing the executive unchecked power to appoint individuals of its choosing.
This debate over the autonomy of the Election Commission is not new. The Congress party, now in opposition, has criticised the government’s move as a dangerous step toward eroding democratic institutions. However, history reveals that successive governments, whether led by the BJP or Congress—have sought to exert influence over independent agencies.
The Supreme Court had earlier emphasized the need for a balanced and independent selection process, aligning with recommendations made by various committees and commissions over the years. The 1990 Goswami Committee, established to suggest electoral reforms, had advocated for a collegium system that included the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition in the selection of Election Commissioners. The Law Commission, in its 2015 report, reinforced this idea, stressing that keeping the Election Commission independent from executive interference was essential for upholding democracy.
However, in direct contradiction to these recommendations, the Modi government has pushed a new bill that excludes the Chief Justice from the selection panel. This move is not just a reversal of earlier expert recommendations but also a departure from BJP’s own historical stance. A resurfaced letter from senior BJP leader and former Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani, written in 2012 to then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, had advocated for including the Chief Justice in the selection process to ensure neutrality. The stark contrast between the BJP’s past and present positions highlights the party’s shifting priorities when in power.
Dr B R Ambedkar, one of the chief architects of the Indian Constitution, had warned that the success of democracy depends not just on well-drafted laws but also on the integrity of those who implement them. Written rules alone cannot safeguard democracy; a commitment to democratic values and institutional independence is equally essential. The ongoing controversy over the selection of Election Commissioners reflects a deeper malaise—the growing centralization of power and the weakening of institutional checks and balances.
India’s democratic resilience depends on strong institutions, not just strong leaders. The politicization of the Election Commission’s appointments must be addressed through meaningful reforms that prioritize neutrality over political expediency. The ruling party, regardless of its identity, must recognize that institutional credibility is not just an electoral concern but a cornerstone of democratic governance.