'Who checks the power?' Ex-SC judge calls for safeguards in poll panel appointments

Abhay Oka said election commissioners need stronger legal safeguards against political dominance. The appointment process should protect institutional independence, because election bodies must be trusted to oversee free and fair elections. He also linked independence with accountability in constitutional appointments.

Oka pointed to a collegium proposal made by former deputy prime minister Lal Krishna Advani. It would bring together the Prime Minister, Law Minister, opposition leaders from both Houses of Parliament, and the Chief Justice of India. He also questioned what would happen if an election commissioner such as Gyanesh Kumar were removed.

The article does not describe a new law already in force. It reports Oka's demand for clearer legal provisions and a more independent selection process. Such rules, he argued, would make appointments and removals less vulnerable to political control and strengthen public confidence in elections.

The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional authority responsible for supervising elections in India. It helps manage the electoral process, including applying election rules and overseeing voting arrangements. Its purpose is to ensure that elections are conducted fairly and that voters can choose their representatives.

An election commissioner is a member of this constitutional body. The commissioner participates in decisions about election administration, oversight, and enforcement of electoral rules. Commissioners therefore help protect the process from interference and support equal treatment of political contestants. Their work affects whether election results are accepted as legitimate.

The source focuses on Abhay Oka's concern that appointments must remain independent from political dominance. It also highlights the importance of clear rules for accountability and removal. These safeguards matter because a politically dependent election authority could weaken confidence in free and fair elections and, in turn, democracy itself.

Lal Krishna Advani proposed a collegium to select election commissioners, rather than leaving the choice to a single political authority. The idea matters because a broader panel can bring different constitutional viewpoints into an appointment. Oka cited the proposal as an example of how selection might be made more independent.

The proposed members were the Prime Minister, the Law Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. Each would bring a different institutional perspective to the decision. The arrangement would require consultation across government, opposition, and the judiciary.

Oka said Advani made the proposal nearly 14 years ago. The source presents it as a reform idea, not as a current appointment rule. Its forward-looking purpose is to reduce political dominance and strengthen confidence in constitutional appointments to the election authority.

Advani's proposed selection collegium would contain five members. Two would represent the government: the Prime Minister and the Law Minister. Two would represent the opposition: the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The fifth member would be the Chief Justice of India.

This creates a 2-2-1 division between the government, opposition, and judiciary. The mechanism is important because no single political side would supply every member of the panel. Government and opposition voices would both be present, while the Chief Justice would add a judicial perspective to the appointment.

The article does not say that this five-member structure has been adopted. It says Advani proposed it nearly 14 years ago, and Oka cited it while calling for a more independent process. The model would, in principle, make selection more collaborative and less vulnerable to ruling-party dominance.

Removal rules are part of institutional independence. An election commissioner may struggle to act impartially if the authority that influences the appointment can also remove the commissioner without clear safeguards. A defined legal process can protect accountability while limiting arbitrary or politically motivated action.

Abhay Oka raised this issue by asking what would happen if an election commissioner, such as Gyanesh Kumar, were removed from office. His question highlighted a gap he believes needs attention: the law should explain who can remove a commissioner, on what grounds, and through what procedure. The source does not provide those rules.

Oka therefore called for clear legal provisions governing appointments and institutional independence. The article presents removal safeguards alongside a more independent selection process. Together, they would help commissioners perform their constitutional role without fearing improper pressure, while still allowing lawful accountability when serious problems arise.

A multi-member selection panel spreads appointment power across several institutions. This differs from a process dominated by the ruling government, where the governing side could have overwhelming influence over who becomes an election commissioner. Broader participation can make the appointment appear more balanced and independent.

Advani's proposed panel illustrates the mechanism. It would include the Prime Minister and Law Minister, two opposition leaders from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. Government members would therefore share the decision with opposition and judicial representatives, rather than controlling the panel alone.

The article does not state how decisions would be made or whether the proposal became law. It reports Oka's support for an independent selection process and his concern about political dominance. A panel with multiple institutional voices could improve accountability, reduce one-sided influence, and strengthen confidence in election appointments.

Independent election institutions are essential because elections decide who exercises public power. If election administrators can work without political dominance, they are better placed to apply rules fairly and protect the voting process. That fairness gives citizens and political groups greater reason to trust the result.

Abhay Oka stressed the importance of safeguards for appointing election commissioners. He cited a collegium involving government, opposition, and judicial representatives, and questioned the legal process for removing a commissioner. These mechanisms address both sides of independence: how officials enter office and how securely they can perform their duties.

The article connects free and fair elections with democracy itself. Oka also said freedom of speech was vital, arguing that disagreements should be handled through debate rather than violence. Strong election institutions, protected speech, and clear accountability rules together can help preserve democratic participation and public confidence.