Kochi: Former Supreme Court of India judge Justice Kurian Joseph has called for stronger constitutional safeguards to protect the independence of the Election Commission of India, stressing that the Supreme Court must act when warnings fail to protect constitutional principles.
Speaking at a seminar in Kochi, Kerala, on October 13, Joseph said constitutional courts have a responsibility to defend the Constitution and protect the independence of democratic institutions. He used the analogy of a watchdog that must bite if barking does not work, underlining the need for effective action when warnings alone fail to achieve their purpose.
The seminar, organised by the Indian Association of Lawyers, Keralam, focused on concerns about the independence of the Election Commission and the safeguards needed to ensure that it can carry out its duties without improper influence.
Joseph called for stronger constitutional provisions covering the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, their conditions of service and their protection against removal. He also questioned why the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners have different levels of protection against removal.
Under the existing constitutional framework, the Chief Election Commissioner enjoys protection against removal comparable to that of a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners can be removed on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
Joseph argued that members of the same constitutional body should have equivalent safeguards to help them perform their responsibilities independently. His proposal would require changes to the existing framework and should be understood as a call for stronger constitutional protection, not as a description of the law currently in force.
The Election Commission is responsible for supervising and conducting elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President. Article 324 of the Constitution of India establishes its authority over the electoral process.
The Commission's independence is important because it oversees elections in which the ruling party and opposition parties compete for public support. Public confidence in the electoral process depends on the Commission carrying out its responsibilities fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law.
The issue of electoral independence has received renewed attention amid controversy over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The exercise aims to review and update voter lists, but opposition parties and other critics have raised concerns about possible irregularities and the exclusion of eligible voters.
The Election Commission has defended the revision process, saying that electoral rolls must be updated to account for deceased voters, duplicate entries, people who have moved and other ineligible registrations. Allegations that eligible voters have been improperly excluded remain disputed and should not be treated as established findings without supporting evidence.
The Supreme Court has previously examined the process for appointing Election Commissioners. In March 2023, it delivered a judgment establishing an interim selection arrangement involving the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice, until Parliament enacted legislation.
Parliament subsequently passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law provides for a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or, where applicable, the leader of the single largest opposition party in that House.
Joseph's call for stronger constitutional safeguards adds to the wider debate about how electoral institutions can maintain their independence and public credibility. His remarks also highlight the distinction between the existing legal framework and proposals to strengthen protections for constitutional officeholders.
The seminar also included a symbolic protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Lawyers participating in an assembly organised in connection with the event reportedly passed a resolution symbolically impeaching him. The action was a form of protest and did not constitute a formal parliamentary impeachment or legal removal proceeding.
Joseph also emphasised the importance of public vigilance in protecting democratic values. He referred to the role citizens can play through peaceful protest and stressed the responsibility of people holding high constitutional offices to uphold the principles entrusted to them.
His remarks come amid continuing debate in India over the independence of public institutions, the conduct of elections and the accountability of constitutional authorities. The discussion highlights the importance of ensuring that institutions responsible for conducting elections can function independently while remaining accountable under the Constitution and the law.
At the heart of the debate is a fundamental democratic principle: constitutional institutions must be able to perform their duties without improper influence, and citizens must have confidence that their rights and the integrity of the electoral process are protected.