Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India
Background
A group of writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenged the fact that, 73 years after the Constitution came into force, Parliament had still not made any law governing how the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) are appointed, leaving the process entirely in the hands of the executive (the government of the day), which the petitioners argued threatened the independence of the body that conducts India's elections. The petitioners, including activists and the Association for Democratic Reforms, asked the Court to fill this gap by directing an independent, neutral method of selection, pointing to prior official reports (including by the Law Commission and government reform committees) that had long recommended a broader selection panel.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that Article 324(2) contemplates Parliament making a law on this subject, but since no such law existed despite decades passing, a genuine "constitutional vacuum" existed that threatened the independence of an institution the Court called essential to free and fair elections and to democracy itself. Using its power under Article 142 to do "complete justice," the Court declared that, until Parliament enacts a law, the CEC and ECs shall be appointed by the President only on the advice of a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest opposition party if there is no recognized Leader of Opposition), and the Chief Justice of India. The Court also urged the government to seriously consider giving the Election Commission a permanent secretariat and charging its expenses to the Consolidated Fund of India (like Parliament's own secretariats), though it stopped short of directing this. Justice Rastogi's concurring opinion additionally favoured extending to ordinary Election Commissioners the same strong protection against removal that the Constitution already gives the Chief Election Commissioner.
Lesson Learnt
When Parliament fails for decades to legislate on a matter the Constitution has left to it, and that failure threatens the independence of a body as vital as the Election Commission, the Supreme Court can step in and lay down a working procedure (here, a broadened appointments committee including the Chief Justice of India) to bridge the gap until lawmakers act.