A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The petitioners challenge the substitution of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the Selection Committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs). The Court emphasized judicial restraint in interim relief for statutory provisions unless manifest unconstitutionality exists. It highlighted procedural shortcomings in appointments but dismissed the plea for stay to avoid disruption of the electoral process.

Keywords: Constitutionality, Election Commissioners, Judicial Restraint, Interim Relief, Plurality, Fundamental Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
ii) Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: 22 March 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
vi) Author: Justice Sanjiv Khanna
vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 881
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 7(1), Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023
• Article 324, Constitution of India

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

• Constitutional Law
• Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arises under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging Section 7(1) of the 2023 Act. The provision replaces the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister in the Selection Committee for EC appointments. Petitioners argue this undermines transparency, violates foundational democratic principles, and contradicts the Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 161, which mandated a judiciary-inclusive Selection Committee.

The Court also addressed procedural flaws in the appointment process, such as inadequate time for deliberations by the Leader of the Opposition (LoP). Procedural irregularities raise questions about adherence to principles of fairness and transparency.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, effective from 02 January 2024, mandates a Selection Committee including the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and LoP.
2. The Leader of Opposition was not provided with sufficient information about shortlisted candidates in advance, affecting deliberation.
3. Applications sought a stay on EC appointments pending judicial review of the statute’s constitutionality.
4. The petitioners argue the process contravened earlier Supreme Court guidelines ensuring judicial participation in EC appointments.
5. The government contends the Act reflects Parliamentary will and procedural compliance.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 7(1) of the 2023 Act violates constitutional principles and fundamental rights by excluding the CJI from the Selection Committee.
ii) Whether the procedural irregularities in the appointment of ECs contravene principles of fairness and transparency.
iii) Whether granting interim relief is justified in cases challenging statutory constitutionality.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Exclusion of Judicial Oversight:
   The replacement of the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister undermines judicial independence and dilutes the Anoop Baranwal judgment’s intent. Judicial inclusion safeguards neutrality in appointments.

2. Procedural Lapses:
   The LoP received information about candidates minutes before the selection meeting, breaching principles of deliberative democracy. The procedural unfairness compromises selection integrity.

3. Fundamental Rights and Democratic Principles:
   The provision threatens free and fair elections, violating the basic structure of the Constitution and democratic ideals upheld under Article 324.

4. Violation of Proportionality Doctrine:
   Section 7(1) disproportionately impacts the judiciary’s role in appointments compared to the executive’s enhanced powers, which contradicts judicial precedent.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Legislative Competence:
   The Act fulfills the Constitutional mandate of Article 324(2). Parliament has discretion to define the appointment procedure, which cannot be challenged unless explicitly unconstitutional.

2. Judicial Overreach:
   The Anoop Baranwal judgment explicitly stated its directions are temporary until a Parliamentary law is enacted. The judiciary cannot prescribe specific legislative content.

3. Urgency and Public Interest:
   Stay orders would disrupt preparation for the 18th General Elections for the Lok Sabha, undermining public interest and causing administrative chaos.

4. Assumption of Constitutional Functioning:
   Constitutional post holders, once appointed, are presumed to act per constitutional mandates, ensuring integrity and independence.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. Judicial restraint is essential in granting interim relief on legislative constitutionality unless a law is manifestly unconstitutional.
2. Procedural lapses are noted but do not warrant intervention due to pressing electoral timelines.

b) Obiter Dicta

1. The selection process must reflect fairness, transparency, and deliberative rigor.
2. Shortlisting criteria for vacancies should ensure detailed information circulation among the Selection Committee.

c) Guidelines

1. Judicial review should respect legislative prerogatives unless laws contravene Fundamental Rights or the Basic Structure doctrine.
2. Procedural sanctity in appointments is crucial for constitutional post holders’ credibility.
3. Courts should prioritize maintaining stability during critical electoral periods over temporary procedural flaws.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores a cautious balance between legislative prerogative and judicial review. While procedural deficiencies were noted, the Court prioritized democratic stability over immediate intervention. This decision highlights the complexities of balancing constitutional doctrines with pragmatic governance needs.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, [2023] 9 SCR 1; (2023) 6 SCC 161
2. Health for Millions v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 496
3. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, [1995] Suppl. 2 SCR 106; (1995) 4 SCC 611

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023
2. Constitution of India, Article 324