New Delhi: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has raised significant concerns over the judiciary’s involvement in executive appointments, particularly questioning the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection of key officials like the CBI Director. Speaking at an event in Bhopal on Friday, Dhankhar highlighted the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and the executive, emphasising that such appointments should remain within the purview of the executive branch.
“How can the CJI be involved in the appointment of the CBI Director in a democracy like India? What is the CJI’s role in this process?” Dhankhar asked, sparking a fresh debate over the separation of powers in the Indian democratic framework.
The Context: CEC Appointment and Judicial Intervention
The Vice President’s remarks come at a crucial time, just ahead of the appointment of the next Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The Supreme Court recently commented on the matter, stating that any developments in the interim would have consequences. A selection panel, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Minister, is set to meet on 17 February to choose the new CEC, as the current CEC, Rajiv Kumar, retires on 18 February.
This will be the first CEC appointment under the new Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which excludes the CJI from the selection panel. Previously, the Supreme Court had mandated the inclusion of the CJI in the panel until Parliament enacted a law on the matter.
Historical Background and Legal Framework
The controversy traces back to a 2015 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Anoop Baranwal, seeking an independent, collegium-like system for appointing the CEC and Election Commissioners to ensure the Election Commission’s impartiality. In March 2023, a five-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that Parliament should legislate on the appointment process. Until then, the selection panel would include the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the CJI.
Following this, the Modi government introduced a bill in Parliament, which became law in 2023. The new law replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the selection panel.
CBI Director Appointment: A Similar Debate
The appointment of the CBI Director has also been a contentious issue. The selection committee for the CBI Director includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the CJI. This structure was formalised in 2013 under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, replacing an earlier system that involved the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and other officials.
The process begins with the Home Ministry preparing a list of eligible IPS officers, which is then forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). However, concerns have been raised about the transparency and independence of these appointments, especially given the CBI’s critical role in investigating high-profile cases.
Vice President’s Broader Concerns
Dhankhar’s remarks reflect broader concerns about the judiciary’s growing influence in executive functions. He emphasised the need to uphold the constitutional separation of powers, warning against any encroachment by one branch of government into the domain of another.
“The judiciary must respect the boundaries set by the Constitution. The executive’s role in appointments cannot be diluted,” Dhankhar stated, urging a re-examination of the processes that allow judicial intervention in executive matters.
What Lies Ahead
As the selection panel prepares to meet for the CEC appointment, the debate over the judiciary’s role in executive appointments is likely to intensify. The Vice President’s comments have reignited discussions about the balance of power in India’s democratic structure, with implications for future appointments and the functioning of key institutions.
With the Supreme Court set to hear a petition challenging the exclusion of the CJI from the CEC selection panel on 19 February, the issue remains a hot topic. As the lines between the judiciary and the executive continue to blur, the need for clarity and adherence to constitutional principles has never been more critical.
Comments are closed.