A Paradigm Shift: Anoop Baranwal V. Union Of India (2023) - Reforming The Appointment Process Of Election Commissioners In India

Aarantha Roy, BML Munjal University

The case of Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023) has paved a way for significant reforms in the appointment procedure of Election Commissioners in India. This case marked a critical moment in Indian Constitutional law as it worked to enhance the independence and integrity of the Election Commission of India, which is an important institution responsible for upholding the principle of democracy by conduction free and fair elections- the very independence that is promised by the constitution through its constituent assembly members.

Firstly, to understand the relevance and context of the Anoop Baranwal v Election Commission of India, we need to understand the background of what led to this case. The case of Anoop Baranwal v Union of India, arose from four writ petitions under Article 321 of the Constitution, which collectively challenged the procedure for the appointment of Election Commissioners and strove for reforms that ensured the impartial and independent aspect of the Election Commission. The main issue was around the interpretation of Article 324(2) of the institutions which lays down the governing principle of the appointment of Election Commissioners. Article 324(2)2 reads as:

“(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President”