ANOOP BARANWAL versus UNION OF INDIA

ANOOP BARANWAL versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court found a legislative vacuum under Article 324(2) because the Constituent Assembly intended Parliament to enact laws governing appointment to the Election Commission; exercising Article 142 to prevent continuing harm to constitutional values, the Court directed that until Parliament enacts a law appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the basis of advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha if no recognised Leader), and the Chief Justice of India; the Court held that under Article 324(5) the special...

Parties
Petitioner: Anoop Baranwal; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Constitution Bench Judgment
Legal Topics
Appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, Independence of Election Commission, Article 324(2) Vacuum, Protection/removal of Election Commissioners Under Article 324(5), Right to Vote/article 326, Permanent Secretariat and Funding of Election Commission, Use of Article 142 to Fill Legislative Gaps
Constitutional Law Election Law Administrative Law Appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Independence of Election Commission Article 324(2) Vacuum Protection/removal of Election Commissioners Under Article 324(5) Right to Vote/article 326 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anoop Baranwal

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Constitution Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the practice of exclusive executive appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under Article 324(2) is constitutionally valid or whether a legislative vacuum exists requiring the Court to lay down norms until Parliament acts
  2. 2 Whether Article 324(2) contemplated Parliament enacting a law to govern appointments and whether the absence of such a law creates a vacuum permitting Court intervention under Article 142
  3. 3 Whether Election Commissioners are entitled to the same protection against removal and protection of conditions of service as the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324(5)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found a legislative vacuum under Article 324(2) because the Constituent Assembly intended Parliament to enact laws governing appointment to the Election Commission; exercising Article 142 to prevent continuing harm to constitutional values, the Court directed that until Parliament enacts a law appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the basis of advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha if no recognised Leader), and the Chief Justice of India; the Court held that under Article 324(5) the special...