Summary
A two-judge Supreme Court bench has delivered a split verdict on challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel, giving the executive a 2:1 majority.
Justice Dipankar Datta held that the case could be decided by applying the principles already settled in Anoop Baranwal (2023). He also observed, as a prima facie view, that a minister bound by collective responsibility cannot be expected to overrule the Prime Minister who nominated him, which reduces the Leader of Opposition to an ornamental role.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the validity of the Act raises new, substantial constitutional questions that require a five-judge bench under Article 145(3). Both judges jointly placed the matter before the CJI and urged a permanent Constitution Bench.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Supreme Court's split verdict sends the challenge to the 2023 EC appointment law to the Chief Justice of India, who may set up a Constitution Bench. It comes as the Election Commission's credibility is under strong political attack.
Standard News
The Empty Clause in Article
324(2) Article 324(2) says the President shall appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners, "subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament." It does not say what that law must contain. This gap in the text is at the centre of the split verdict: the Constitution invited Parliament to legislate but set no conditions on the law it might pass.
The
Rule as Written, the Rule as Practised For 73 years Parliament passed no law and the executive made every appointment. In Anoop Baranwal (2023) the Court filled the gap with an interim panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
The Court was explicit that this arrangement would last only until Parliament enacted a law. Parliament then passed the 2023 Act and replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
On paper, Parliament did exactly what Article 324(2) invited it to do. In practice, the panel became 2:1 in favour of the executive. Justice Datta's key point rests on Article 75(3), which makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
A minister bound by that responsibility is unlikely to vote against the Prime Minister who nominated him. The panel therefore has three seats but, in effect, two votes that move together and the Leader of Opposition becomes "ornamental".
Justice Datta called these prima facie observations, but the structural point stands without any finding of bad faith: the design itself removes the neutral vote.
The Two Readings
Justice Datta: Anoop Baranwal already settled the principle that EC appointments cannot remain under exclusive executive control and that independence in appointment is part of the basic structure because free and fair elections depend on it. Testing the 2023 Act is simply applying that principle to a new set of facts, which a two-judge bench can do.
Justice Sharma: Anoop Baranwal set up an interim mechanism because there was no law. It never ruled on what a valid law must contain. Whether Parliament can leave out a neutral selector is therefore a new question and Article 145(3), which requires at least five judges for substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, prevents two judges from deciding it.
Both readings have merit. That is why the matter is unsettled and why the joint order sent it to the CJI rather than to a three-judge bench.
The Question Underneath Can
Parliament legislate around a value the Court has treated as part of the basic structure? The text gave Parliament the power to make the law. The Court says that power must still respect free and fair elections. Where those two limits meet is what a Constitution Bench will have to decide.
For the exam: Article 324(2) is a delegation without guidance. That makes the question about a neutral selector a question of constitutional design, not only of political choice and it links this case to wider debates on how independent bodies such as the CBI and the information commissions are appointed.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Article 324(2): the President appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament.
-
For 73 years, from 1950 to 2023, Parliament passed no such law and appointments were made by the executive alone.
-
Anoop Baranwal v.
-
Union of India (March 2023): a Constitution Bench set up an interim panel of the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI until Parliament enacted a law.
-
The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, making the panel 2:1 in the executive's favour.
-
Article 75(3): the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
-
Article 145(3): at least five judges must decide any substantial question of law on interpreting the Constitution.
-
Justice Dipankar Datta: no need for a Constitution Bench and the panel prima facie fails the perception test.
-
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma: referral needed, since the Act's validity has never been authoritatively decided.
-
The Anoop Baranwal case took eight years to reach a final judgment.
-
The bench urged the CJI to consider a permanent five-judge Constitution Bench.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
Why the delegation to Parliament in Article 324(2), with no conditions attached, is the silence behind the whole dispute and whether the framers left it open deliberately.
How Article 75(3) collective responsibility turns a three-member panel into two votes that move together, with the Leader of Opposition sidelined.
A case study comparing the NJAC judgment of 2015 with Anoop Baranwal: the Court has twice treated independence in appointments as part of the basic structure.
A short-term and long-term way forward, from a permanent Constitution Bench to a neutral third member on the panel.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free