Editorial 1 : Doing the Right Thing
Context: Appointment of new Chief Election Commissioner.
Introduction: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been the cornerstone of free and fair elections in India. However, the appointment process of election commissioners (ECs) has been questioned for years, raising serious concerns about the autonomy and impartiality of this vital institution.
Historical Context: Civil Society Advocacy
- Organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Common Cause, and Lok Satta Movement have campaigned for reforms since 2015.
- BJP leader L.K. Advani also emphasized the need for bipartisan appointments.
Legal Challenges and Judicial Response
- ADR’s 2015 Petition
- Challenged exclusive executive control over EC appointments under Article 324(2).
- Referred to a Constitution Bench in 2018 but no expedited hearings.
- Supreme Court’s 2023 Ruling (Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India)
- Directed the creation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister (PM), Leader of Opposition (LoP), and Chief Justice of India (CJI) until Parliament legislated a law.
- Highlighted Parliament’s 70-year failure to enact legislation under Article 324(2).
2023 Act and its Implications
- Key Provisions of the 2023 Act
- Replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM in the selection panel.
- Committee composition: PM + Cabinet Minister + LoP.
- Criticisms
- Partisan Bias: Reduced judicial oversight, granting the ruling party a 2:1 majority in appointments.
- Undermined SC’s Intent: Overturned the spirit of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling.
- Optics: Raised concerns about the ECI’s perceived independence.
Post-2023 Act Developments
- ADR’s 2024 Challenge
- Petitioners argued the Act institutionalized executive dominance.
- Supreme Court refused to stay the law, enabling appointments under the new framework.
- Controversial Appointments
- March 2024: Two ECs appointed under the 2023 Act despite pending judicial review.
- February 2025: New CEC appointed via midnight order before the scheduled hearing.
- Judicial Delays: Hearing adjourned indefinitely after February 19, 2025, leaving constitutional questions unresolved.
International Comparisons
- Global Best Practices
- USA: President appoints with Senate approval.
- South Africa: President selects based on National Assembly recommendations.
- UK: Cross-party Speaker’s Committee oversees appointments.
- France/Nepal: Multi-stakeholder involvement (executive, legislature, judiciary).
- Most democracies ensure bipartisan/neutral mechanisms to safeguard electoral integrity.
Key Concerns
- Executive Overreach: 2023 Act perpetuates ruling party dominance in EC appointments.
- Judicial Inaction: Delayed hearings and refusal to stay the Act weakened institutional checks.
- Public Perception: Erosion of trust in the ECI’s independence due to partisan appointments.
- Legal Vacuum: Parliament’s failure to legislate for 70 years enabled ad-hoc solutions.
Implications for Indian Democracy
- Threat to Electoral Integrity: Risks of biased oversight in elections.
- Institutional Erosion: Weakens the ECI’s constitutional mandate as an impartial arbiter.
- Precedent: Executive’s ability to override judicial recommendations sets a dangerous template for other autonomous bodies.
Way Forward: Recommendations
- Restore CJI’s Role: Reintroduce the CJI into the selection panel to balance executive influence.
- Legislative Reform: Enact a bipartisan law aligning with global standards (e.g., UK’s cross-party model).
- Judicial Urgency: Supreme Court must prioritize cases critical to democratic institutions.
- Public Awareness: Civil society must sustain pressure for transparent processes.
Conclusion: The integrity of India’s electoral process hinges on the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission, real and visible. Embracing a bipartisan and neutral collegium-based appointment system, drawing from global best practices, would not only fortify the ECI’s autonomy but also bolster public confidence in the democratic process.
Editorial 2 : Throwing Ukraine Under the Bus
Context: Three years of the Ukraine-Russia conflict & lessons for India.
Context and Historical Backdrop
- Post-World War II Security Framework
- Established norms based on the inviolability of national borders.
- The 1975 Helsinki agreement symbolized a long-held belief that territorial changes by force were unacceptable.
- The Ukraine Invasion (February 24, 2022)
- Marked a critical break with post-war security principles.
- Shattered the notion that war was an obsolete tool for altering borders.
Western Response to Russian Aggression
- Symbolism of Ukrainian Resistance
- Ukraine’s fight was portrayed as a stand for freedom and sovereignty.
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy became a symbol of resilient resistance.
- Political Labelling and Sanctions
- US President Joe Biden labelled Putin a war criminal.
- The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023.
- Subsequent US-led sanctions and asset freezes targeted Russia.
Shifts in Transatlantic Security Dynamics
- Erosion of the Collective Security Paradigm
- NATO’s Historical Role: Since 1949, NATO has been viewed as a nearly inviolable collective security system for Western Europe.
- Impact of US Policy Changes
- Under President Donald Trump, NATO was neutered.
- Early actions by Trump included diminishing the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership and suggesting that Russia could retain its territorial gains.
- Emerging Diplomatic Engagements: Potential Trump-Putin Deal
- Speculation of a ceasefire agreement has arisen amid indications of a US-Russia rapprochement.
- The negotiation is viewed with scepticism: Is it a sustainable, equitable resolution or merely a short-term transaction?
Criticism of US Leadership
- Inconsistencies and Contradictions
- While Trump has advocated for peace and a reduction in US defence spending, his policy statements are described as erratic.
- His outreach to Putin contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s approach of resisting Moscow’s aggression.
- Internal Dissent: Within Trump’s own team and the broader Republican Party, there is significant opposition to the perceived appeasement of Russia.
- Historical Comparisons
- The Clinton-era promises regarding NATO expansion.
- Seminal geopolitical holy grail eluded former presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev during the Cold War.
Way Forward: Lessons for India
- Strategic Autonomy: The situation in Europe offers a critical lesson, do not underestimate the importance of robust military capabilities.
- Defence Spending: Emphasizes the need for India to allocate defence resources in accordance with emerging security threats.
- Independent Policy: Ekla chalo (walk alone, to borrow from Rabindranath Tagore) in honing military muscle has to be internalised by India with much greater resolve and integrity than has been the case till now.
Conclusion: Realignment between the US and Russia could leave Europe exposed without the strong backing of the American security umbrella. A stable US-Russia relationship could force China to recalibrate its strategy relative to USA. India, in particular, is advised to reassess its defence priorities in light of potential shifts in global alliances.