CJI on panel to pick CEC not statutory need: Govt

The Central Government has taken the position before the Supreme Court that inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection panel for appointi...

What Happened

The Central Government has taken the position before the Supreme Court that inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection panel for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) is not a statutory requirement.
The government's stand defends the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which constituted a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, and the Leader of Opposition — explicitly excluding the CJI.
The Supreme Court (May 14, 2026) questioned the current process, raising concerns that the committee structure allows the executive to dominate the appointment of what is constitutionally envisioned as an independent institution. The bench has reserved judgment after arguments concluded.
The legal challenge argues that the 2023 Act is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's constitutional directive in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).

Static Topic Bridges

Article 324 — The Election Commission of India

Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President in the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Article 324(2) provides that the ECI shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of Election Commissioners as the President may determine. The appointment is made by the President (i.e., on the advice of the Council of Ministers). The provision states that subject to any law made by Parliament, the appointment shall be made by the President.

Article 324(2): CEC appointed by President; appointment modalities subject to Parliamentary law.
Article 324(5): CEC cannot be removed except by the process applicable to a Supreme Court judge (address by Parliament); Election Commissioners can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC — providing asymmetric protection.
For 73 years (1950–2023), no law governed the appointment process — the executive enjoyed unfettered discretion.

Connection to this news: The 2023 Act is the first Parliament-enacted law governing CEC appointments under Article 324(2) — but its composition has been challenged as undermining the institutional independence the article implicitly requires.

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) — The Landmark SC Directive

In March 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that in the absence of a law made by Parliament, the appointment of the CEC and ECs shall be made by the President on the advice of a committee comprising: 1. The Prime Minister 2. The Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest opposition party) 3. The Chief Justice of India

The Court held that the Constitution, read as a whole and in light of the constitutional scheme of independent institutions, requires a neutral element in the selection process. The CJI was included as that neutral element to prevent executive monopoly.

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India: decided March 2, 2023; 5-judge bench.
Directed: committee of PM + LoP + CJI until Parliament legislates.
The judgment was explicitly interim in character — Parliament free to legislate differently.
The Court did not hold that the CJI's inclusion is constitutionally mandated forever; it was a stop-gap.

Connection to this news: The government's argument is precisely that Anoop Baranwal was a "stop-gap" judicial directive for a legislative vacuum — which Parliament has now filled via the 2023 Act. The question before the Court in 2026 is whether Parliament's choice to replace CJI with a PM-nominated minister satisfies the constitutional requirement of independence under Article 324.

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023

Enacted in December 2023 to fill the 73-year legislative vacuum under Article 324(2). Key provisions:

Selection Committee (as enacted): 1. Prime Minister (Chair) 2. Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister 3. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party)

Departure from Anoop Baranwal directive: The CJI has been replaced by a PM-nominated minister. Critics note this gives the ruling coalition a permanent 2:1 majority on the panel.

Other key provisions: - Search Committee of five senior bureaucrats to prepare a panel of names. - Service conditions of CEC equated with Supreme Court judge (salary, allowances). - Term: 6 years or until age 65, whichever is earlier (same as before). - EC removal: on recommendation of CEC (unchanged from Article 324(5)).

Act enacted: December 2023.
Replaces the Anoop Baranwal interim arrangement.
The SC question in May 2026: Does Parliament's law satisfy the "independence" implicit in Article 324? Or does "basic structure" require a neutral member?
Parallel: The CBI Director is appointed by a committee that includes the CJI — cited by SC bench as a comparator.

Connection to this news: The government's defence is that Parliament has exercised its Article 324(2) power and the composition is a legitimate policy choice — the CJI's presence is not constitutionally compelled. The Supreme Court is testing whether this reasoning survives the "basic structure" doctrine and the separation of powers principle.

The 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC — A Relevant Parallel

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) and struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — the NJAC case — because it was found to compromise judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The NJAC is a relevant structural parallel: Parliament legislated a different appointment mechanism for the judiciary; the Court struck it down as incompatible with the basic structure.

99th Amendment, 2014: replaced collegium system with NJAC for judicial appointments.
Struck down: 2015 (4:1 majority); judicial independence = basic structure.
Petitioners in the CEC case argue analogously: electoral independence = basic structure; executive-dominated panel = unconstitutional.
Government counters: electoral body ≠ judiciary; Article 324(2) expressly makes appointments subject to Parliament; the cases are distinguishable.

Connection to this news: The 2026 SC hearings on the CEC Act echo the NJAC litigation structurally — Parliament legislated an appointment mechanism that the Court considers may tilt institutional independence.

Key Facts & Data

Article 324: Establishes ECI; CEC appointed by President subject to Parliamentary law.
Article 324(5): CEC removal only by Parliamentary address (same as SC judge); EC removal on CEC recommendation.
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): 5-judge bench; directed PM + LoP + CJI committee until Parliament legislates.
Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023: PM + PM-nominated Cabinet Minister + LoP.
First law governing CEC appointment: 2023 (73-year vacuum filled).
CJI excluded from the statutory panel — the central constitutional challenge.
SC May 14, 2026: bench raised concerns; judgment reserved.
CBI Director appointment panel includes the CJI — cited as comparable independent-institution precedent.
99th Amendment / NJAC: structural parallel — Parliament legislated judicial appointments; struck down as violating basic structure (2015).
CEC term: 6 years or until age 65, whichever earlier.