Article 324 left the appointment of the Election Commission to a future law of Parliament. In the light of the CEC and Other ECs Appointment Act 2023 and the Anoop Baranwal judgment, examine whether the present mechanism secures the umpire’s independence. Critically analyse.

Introduction:

Article 324(2) made the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners 'subject to the provisions of any law' by Parliament; for seventy-three years no such law existed and the executive picked the umpire alone, until the Anoop Baranwal ruling and the 2023 Act filled the void.

The Baranwal interim collegium: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2 March 2023) read in a panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament legislated — a separation-of-powers safeguard echoing the Vineet Narain approach.

The 2023 Act and Jaya Thakur challenge: The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act 2023 replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister, giving the executive a 2:1 majority. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (pending) challenges the dilution of judicial input recommended by the Goswami Committee (1990), 2nd ARC and the 255th Law Commission Report.

Structural asymmetry under Article 324(5): The CEC enjoys Supreme Court judge-like protection but ECs are removable only on the CEC's recommendation — a fault line exposed when the Election Commission of India operates as a three-member collegiate body since 1 October 1993.

Way forward / Conclusion:

A genuinely broad-based selection panel, equalised tenure protection for all three members, and a statutory secretariat are the reforms that match Article 324's design and the T.N. Seshan-era restoration of independence.