Free and fair elections can happen only if there are independent Election Commissioners, SC says The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 14, 2026) raised concerns about the government’s role in appointing Election Commissioners, emphasizing that free and fair elections require an independent Election Commission of India. The court questioned the neutrality of the Prime Minister-led selection panel for these roles, noting the absence of any “absolutely neutral person” on the committee. It also challenged the inclusion of a Cabinet Minister on the panel, arguing that such a minister could not be expected to act independently of the Prime Minister. The court further doubted whether the Leader of the Opposition’s presence on the committee was merely symbolic, as appointments could proceed without unanimous agreement. The hearing focused on a batch of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Petitioners argued that the law contradicted a landmark Supreme Court judgment from the Anoop Baranwal case, which had established a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. The 2023 Act, passed shortly after the judgment, replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, effectively transferring the appointment power to the executive. Justice Dipankar Datta, presiding over a Division Bench, described the Anoop Baranwal judgment as a “classic example of judicial restraint and statesmanship.#prime_minister #supreme_court #election_commission_of_india #chief_election_commissioner #attorney_general
"Executive Controlling Everything": Top Court On Poll Body Chief Selection The Supreme Court on Thursday addressed a contentious issue regarding the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, raising questions about the exclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel. The court's focus centered on the disparity in the composition of the committee responsible for choosing the Chief Election Commissioner compared to the one for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director. During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta highlighted the apparent contradiction in the selection mechanisms. While the CJI is included in the committee for appointing the CBI director, the same individual is excluded from the panel tasked with selecting the Chief Election Commissioner. Datta posed pointed questions about the rationale behind this distinction, emphasizing the lack of an independent member in the latter panel. "Why shouldn't there be an independent member? Why should it be from the ministry?" the judge asked, noting that the current process allows the Prime Minister to select one member and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) to choose another, with the third member leaning toward the LoP. The attorney general, R Venkataramani, responded by stating he would not speculate on the matter, deferring to the executive's discretion. Datta countered by accusing the executive of wielding unchecked authority, declaring, "Then it is the executive who is controlling everything." The bench further observed that decisions in such appointments would likely be determined by a 2:1 majority, with the cabinet minister unlikely to challenge the Prime Minister's stance.#prime_minister #supreme_court #central_bureau_of_investigation #chief_election_commissioner #justice_dipankar_datta
Rajya Sabha Speaker Rejects CEC Removal Motion | Parliament News Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan have rejected a motion to remove Chief Election Commissioner Jnanesh Kumar from his post. The motion, which had garnered support from 193 opposition members of parliament (130 in Lok Sabha and 63 in Rajya Sabha), was dismissed on legal and constitutional grounds. The decision means the process to remove the CEC cannot proceed further unless a new initiative aligns with constitutional provisions. The motion was based on allegations that the CEC, Jnanesh Kumar, has been favoring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in various electoral processes, particularly the Special Intensive Review (SIR) mechanism for scrutinizing voter lists. Opposition parties argued that this process was being used to benefit the central government, with specific concerns raised about its impact in West Bengal. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee accused the Election Commission of removing genuine voters from the electoral rolls. The rejection of the motion followed a legal review under Section 3 of the Judicial Inquiry Act, 1968. According to the law, an inquiry committee can only be formed if both houses of parliament approve the motion. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha speakers emphasized that the existing legal framework does not permit the removal of the CEC without adherence to constitutional procedures. The motion required a minimum of 100 signatures in Lok Sabha and 50 in Rajya Sabha to proceed. The opposition, led by the Indian National Developmental Progressive Alliance (INDIA) bloc, had collaborated to meet these thresholds. This marked the first time a motion to remove the CEC had been tabled.#bharatiya_janata_party #rajya_sabha_speaker #lok_sabha_speaker #chief_election_commissioner #west_bengal_chief_minister
