Supreme Court सुनवाई में चुनौती दे रहा है Election Commissioners Act, 2023 को कार्यकारी प्रभुत्व के ऊपर

<p>The <strong>Supreme Court</strong> is hearing petitions that question the constitutional validity of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commissioners Act, 2023 — A law enacted by Parliament that fixes the composition of the committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, raising issues of institutional independence (GS2: Polity)">Election Commissioners Act, 2023</span>. Petitioners argue that the Act gives the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prime Minister — Head of the executive branch of the Government of India, whose recommendation under the 2023 Act could effectively decide the appointment of Election Commissioners (GS2: Polity)">Prime Minister</span> a decisive edge, thereby compromising the autonomy of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission of India — Constitutional body responsible for administering free and fair elections to the Parliament, State Legislatures and the President/Vice‑President (GS2: Polity)">Election Commission of India</span> (ECI).</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>A two‑judge bench of <strong>Justice Dipankar Datta</strong> and <strong>Justice Satish Chandra Sharma</strong> is hearing the batch of petitions (W.P.(C) No. 14/2024).</li> <li>The petitions invoke the precedent set in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India — 2023 Supreme Court judgment that laid down an interim, multi‑member selection committee (PM, LoP, CJI) for appointing Election Commissioners until Parliament legislates (GS2: Polity)">Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India</span>, contending that the 2023 Act violates its spirit.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>Vijay Hansaria</strong> emphasised that the Constitution Assembly stressed an independent, impartial Election Commission, free from the "government of the day".</li> <li>He argued that executive dominance creates a conflict of interest, likening it to the need for judicial independence from the executive.</li> <li>Justice Datta questioned whether a parliamentary law must be bound by the interim mechanism prescribed in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Anoop Baranwal judgment — Supreme Court decision that temporarily filled the vacuum in the appointment process, stressing the need for a balanced committee (GS2: Polity)">Anoop Baranwal judgment</span>.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The selection committee under the 2023 Act comprises the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prime Minister — See definition above (GS2: Polity)">Prime Minister</span>, a minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Leader of the Opposition — Head of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, representing an alternative voice in parliamentary proceedings (GS2: Polity)">Leader of the Opposition (LoP)</span>. The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India — The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court,