Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar rightly called out Congress and other Opposition leaders for misleading claims about the CBI Director selection and the Election Commissioners process, although he did not mention the latter. At issue is the push to include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the three-member panel—a move that raises serious concerns about institutional balance.
Addressing the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal, Dhankhar questioned the rationale behind judicial involvement in executive decisions, particularly in the appointment of officials like the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Citing the example of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director’s selection, he asked: “How can a democracy allow the CJI to participate in the selection of a CBI Director?” He emphasized that such practices emerged from executive deference to judicial rulings but now warrant reconsideration.
The inclusion of the CJI in the selection process even for Election Commissioners traces back to a Supreme Court ruling in March 2023. The court mandated that a three-member committee—comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the CJI—select the CEC and ECs. However, this move was met with skepticism from legal experts, who cautioned that judicial involvement in executive appointments could compromise the Supreme Court’s neutrality.
Subsequently, the government introduced the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, in the Rajya Sabha. The Bill removed the CJI from the selection committee, restoring the process to an executive-led framework. This was a direct rejection of the earlier Supreme Court-mandated model.
Despite challenges from Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, the Supreme Court refused to stay the Modi government’s new law excluding the CJI from the three-member panel selecting Election Commissioners. The bench cited risks of disrupting the Election Commission’s functioning. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, now Chief Justice, warned that halting appointments under the law could cause administrative paralysis.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that the Constituent Assembly had envisioned an independent selection process, free from executive dominance. However, the court recognized that there were no allegations against the newly appointed Election Commissioners, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, who took office under the revised selection process. A final hearing on the matter is scheduled for March 21.
Dhankhar’s remarks extend beyond the Election Commission debate to the broader issue of judicial overreach. He cautioned against governance by judicial decree, warning that such trends disrupt the balance of power. While acknowledging the role of judicial review, he reaffirmed that the authority to amend laws and determine governance structures lies with Parliament.
“Governments are accountable to the legislature and the electorate, not to judicial interpretations that extend beyond their mandate,” Dhankhar asserted. His concerns reflect a long-standing debate on the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters.
Despite these considerations, Congress and its allies continue to push for the CJI’s inclusion in the selection process, disregarding the risks of judicial entanglement in political disputes. Ironically, it was none other than former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who initially floated the idea—one that was ultimately rejected by the government.
Rahul Gandhi’s insistence on this model, despite expert warnings, raises questions about whether this is a genuine reform push or merely a political maneuver. By advocating a system that could create more disputes rather than resolve them, the opposition risks undermining the credibility of the Election Commission itself.
Vice President Dhankhar’s intervention serves as a necessary reminder of constitutional boundaries. Institutions must function within their designated roles to maintain democratic stability. While judicial oversight remains crucial, policymaking and governance must ultimately rest with elected representatives. The ongoing legal battle over the selection process for Election Commissioners is not just a procedural dispute—it is a test of India’s institutional integrity and constitutional balance.
