There is a debate on the procedure for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to the Election Commission of India. Analyse its various aspects. (Answer in 250 words)

- There is a debate on the procedure for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to the Election Commission of India. Analyse its various aspects. (Answer in 250 words)
Introduction
Article 324(2) leaves appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to the President, subject to any law made by Parliament. For seven decades no such law was made, so the executive alone appointed the body refereeing its own elections.

Body

1. The original defect: Sole executive discretion in an institution whose entire authority rests on being seen as neutral. Tarkunde, Goswami, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Law Commission's 255th Report all recommended a collegium.
2. The Court's intervention: In Anoop Baranwal, in March 2023, a Constitution Bench held that until Parliament legislated, appointments would be made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice, expressly as an interim arrangement.
3. Parliament's answer: The 2023 Act substituted a Union Minister for the Chief Justice, giving the government two of three votes on a panel prepared by a Search Committee headed by the Law Minister. The defect Baranwal identified was in substance restored by statute.
4. The contrary argument: Appointment is an executive function; a judge who helps select may later hear a challenge to it; and Article 324(2) reserves the field to Parliament, whose plenary power a judicial stopgap cannot displace.
5. The neglected asymmetry: Article 324(5) protects only the Chief Election Commissioner from removal, while other Commissioners may go on his recommendation, an imbalance noted at the time of the Seshan litigation and never cured.

Conclusion
The real subject of the debate is perceived impartiality, which is the Commission's only asset. Restoring a non-executive third member, equalising removal protection and barring post-retirement office would do more for credibility than further litigation.