Writer and activist Professor Dilip Mandal, in a post on X, highlighted the historical context of Election Commissioner appointments. He pointed out that past Prime Ministers exercised unilateral control over these appointments, emphasising that the current debate is politically motivated rather than rooted in genuine concerns over democratic fairness.
https://twitter.com/Profdilipmandal/status/1892957789347049601?t=3rQLb8B-JrsZD_Ku5XI2Tw&s=08
For decades, India’s Election Commissioners were appointed solely based on the Prime Minister’s recommendation—a practice that remained unquestioned under Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Vajpayee, Narasimha Rao, and Manmohan Singh. The process lacked opposition participation and was entirely at the discretion of the ruling government. However, after Narendra Modi took office in 2014, the system was challenged in court, setting off a chain of legal and political battles.
At the center of the controversy is the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO heavily funded by foreign entities, including Omidyar Network, which is linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. The Bharatiya government banned Omidyar’s foreign funding in 2024, citing concerns over external interference in India’s electoral policies. Despite this, ADR has been aggressively pursuing legal action against the Modi government’s Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
ADR’s latest petition argues that the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution, contending that the selection process should not be dominated by the executive. However, what ADR conveniently ignores is that prior to PM Modi ’s intervention, there was no formal selection process for Election Commissioners at all. The appointment was a closed-door affair controlled exclusively by the Prime Minister and the Law Ministry, with little to no opposition oversight.
ADR’s involvement raises pressing questions about its motivations. The organisation, which has consistently positioned itself as an advocate for electoral transparency, has itself been under scrutiny for receiving significant foreign funding from organisations with vested interests in Indian politics. The government’s move to block ADR’s key funder, Omidyar Network, highlights concerns that foreign entities are influencing India’s electoral framework under the guise of activism.
Notably, Prashant Bhushan, a career activist and Supreme Court lawyer, has been leading ADR’s legal crusade against the government. Bhushan has previously been associated with left-leaning movements and was a key figure in the 2020 anti-CAA protests, where he allegedly hosted a meeting attended by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid—both accused of inciting the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.
Bhushan’s latest statement on X suggested that ADR’s petition will be heard on February 19, with any Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) appointment made after February 18 being subject to the Supreme Court’s final ruling. This comes after the court had already upheld the appointment process outlined in the new law and rejected ADR’s previous attempt to nullify the appointment of the current CEC, Rajiv Kumar.
ADR and Bhushan’s repeated interventions in court appear to be less about judicial oversight and more about obstructing the government’s electoral reforms. The Supreme Court itself, in a landmark judgment on March 2, 2023, had recommended that a selection panel including the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should oversee the appointment process until Parliament passed a law.
When the Modi government followed this directive and passed the 2023 Act, ADR moved the court yet again—this time arguing that the selection process should include the CJI permanently, not just until a law was enacted. The irony? The Supreme Court had itself stated that its earlier directive was an interim measure and that Parliament had the right to legislate on the matter.
Despite ADR and Bhushan’s claims, the new appointment law actually makes the process more inclusive than before. Unlike previous governments, which appointed Election Commissioners in a completely unilateral manner, the Modi government’s reform ensures the participation of the Leader of the Opposition, making the process bipartisan.
Yet, ADR continues to challenge this move in court, raising concerns that its legal battle is less about democratic integrity and more about foreign-funded activism aimed at discrediting the PM Modi government. The Supreme Court, while hearing ADR’s plea, categorically rejected the NGO’s arguments, stating: “You cannot say that the Election Commission is under the thumb of the executive. At this stage, we cannot stay the legislation, and it will lead to only chaos and uncertainty.”
This was in direct response to Bhushan’s assertion that the government was “dominating” the appointment process. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, also noted that there were no allegations against the newly appointed Election Commissioners, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, thereby undercutting ADR’s claim of executive bias.
Comments