Supreme Court ने सरकार को 2023 EC Appointment Act में संशोधन करने का आग्रह किया — चुनावी स्वतंत्रता के लिए निहितार्थ

<p>On <strong>Thursday, 14 May 2026</strong>, the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and safeguards fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> cautioned the Union government to address the lack of neutrality in the selection panel for the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission of India — Constitutional authority tasked with conducting free and fair elections to the Parliament, State Legislatures and local bodies (GS2: Polity)">Election Commission of India</span> (ECI). The bench stressed that the credibility of elections hinges on an unquestionably independent commission.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Court noted that the Prime Minister‑chaired committee contains <strong>no absolutely neutral person</strong> and that a Cabinet Minister on the panel cannot be expected to oppose the Prime Minister’s wishes.</li> <li>It questioned whether the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Leader of the Opposition — The head of the largest non‑government party in the Lok Sabha, whose presence is meant to ensure bipartisan scrutiny (GS2: Polity)">Leader of the Opposition</span> on the committee is merely ornamental, given that appointments can proceed without a unanimous vote.</li> <li>The bench is hearing petitions challenging the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 — Legislation that altered the composition of the EC appointment panel, replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister (GS2: Polity)">2023 EC Appointment Act</span>, which the petitioners argue defeats the earlier <span class="key-term" data-definition="Anoop Baranwal judgment — 2023 Supreme Court decision that created a three‑member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India for appointing EC members (GS2: Polity)">Anoop Baranwal judgment</span>.</li> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Dipankar Datta — Senior judge of the Supreme Court who headed the Division Bench hearing the case (GS2: Polity)">Dipankar Datta</span> emphasized that independence must be both real and perceived, invoking the basic‑structure doctrine that free elections are essential to democracy.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The 2023 Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, thereby shifting decisive power to the Executive.</li> <li>The petitioners contend that the Act contravenes the constitutional mandate under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 324(2) — Provision empowering Parliament to make laws regarding the appointment, conditions of service and tenure of Election Commissioners (GS2: Polity)">Article 324(2)</span> of the Constitution.</li> <li>The Court highlighted that earlier j